Los A-s 1 1 c ; a « LtOrar> Examir>»' s, Califc HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE FROM THE BEST HISTORIANS, BIOGRAPHERS, AND SPECIALISTS THEIR OWN WORDS IN A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF HISTOEY FOR ALL USES, EXTENDING TO ALL COUNTRIES AND SUBJECTS, AND REPRESENTING FOR BOTH READERS AND STUDENTS THE BETTER AND NEWER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY J. N. LARNED WITH NUMEROUS HISTORICAL MAPS FROM ORIGINAL STUDIES AND DRAWINGS BY ALAN C. REILEY REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION IN SIX VOLUMES VOLUME II— ELECTRICAL to GERUSIA SPRINGFIELD, MASS. THE C. A. NICHOLS CO., PUBLISHERS 1901 OopnuoHT, 1894, BY J. N. LAKNED. COPTEIOHT, 1901, BT J. N. LARNBD. The Riverside Prets, Cambridge, Mass., TJ. 8, A, Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company. College Ubrarv / - LIST OF MAPS. Map of Europe at the close of the Tenth Century To follow page 1048 Map of Europe in 1768 To follow page IIU Four maps of France, A. D. 1154, 1180, 1314 and 1360, To follow page 1200 Two maps of Central Europe, A. D. 843 and 888 On page 1437 Map of Germany at the Peace of Westphalia To follow page 1519 Maps of Germany, A. D. 1815 and 1866; of the Netherlands, 1830-1839; and of the ZoUverein To follow page 1576 LOGICAL OUTLINES, IN COLORS. English history, To follow page 807 French history To follow page 1188 German history, To follow page 1463 1158206 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. Franklin. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND IN- VENTION.— That amber when rubbed attracts light bodies was known in tlie earliest tinips. "It is the one single experiment in electricity which has come down to us from the remotest antiquity. . . . The power of certain fishes, nota- bly what is known as the 'torpedo,' to produce electricity, was known at an early period, and was commented on by Pliny and Aristotle." Un- til the 16th century there was no scientific study of these phenomena. "Dr. Gilbert can justly be called the creator of the science of electricity and magnetism. His experiments were prodi- gious in number. ... To him we are indebted for the name ' electricity,' which he bestowed upon the power or property which amber ex- hibited in attracting light bodies, borrowing the name from the substance itself, in order to de- fine one of its attributes. . . . This application of experiment to the study of electricity, begvui by Gilbert three hundred years ago, was indus- triously pursued by those who came after hini, and the nest two centuries witnessed a rapid development of science. Among the earlier stu- dents of this period were the English philoso- pher, Robert Boyle, and the celebrated burgo- master of Magdeburg, Otto von Gucricke. The latter first noted the sound and light accom- panymg electrical excitation. These were after- wards independently discovered by Dr. Wall, an Englishman, who made the somewhat prophetic observation, ' This light and crackling seems in some degree to represent thunder and lightning.' Sir Isaac Newton made a few experiments in electricity, which he exhibited to the Royal So- ciety. . . . Francis Hawksbee was an active and useful contributor to experimental investigation, and he also called attention to the resemblance between the electric spark and lightning. The most ardent student of electricity in the early years of the eighteenth century was Stephen Gray. He performed a multitude of experiments, nearly all of which added something to the rapidly accumulating stock of knowledge, but doubtless his most important contribution was his discovery of the distinction between conductors and non- conductors. . . . Some of Gray's papers fell into the hands of Dufay, an officer of the French army, who, after several years' service, had re- signed his post to devote himself to scientific pursuits. . . . His most important discovery was the existence of two distinct species of electricity, which he named 'vitreous' and 'resinous.' ... A very important advance was made in 1745 in the invention of the Leyden jar or phial. As has so many times happened in the history of scientific discovery, it seems tolerably certain that this interesting device was hit upon by at least three persons, working Independently _ of each other. One Cuueus, a monk named Kleist, and Professor Muschenbroeck, of Leyden, are all accredited with the discovery. ... Sir William Watson perfected it by adding the outside metal- lic coating, and was by its aid enabled to fire gunpowder and other inflammables." — T. C. Mendenhall, A Century of Electricity , ch. 1. A. D. 1745-1747. — Franklin's identification of Electricity with Lightning.— " In 1745 Mr. Peter Collinson of the Royal Society sent a [Leyden] jar to the Library Society of Philadel- phia, with instructions how to use it. This fell into the hands of Benjamin Franklin, who at once began a series of electrical experiments On March 28, 1747, Franklin began his fanwua letters to Collinson. ... In these letters he pro- pounded the single-fluid theory of electricity, and referred all electric phenomena to its accu- mulation in bodies in quantities more than their natural share, or to its being withdrawn from them so as to leave them minus their proper por- tion." Meantime, numerous experiments with the Leyden jar had convinced Franklin of the identity of lightning and electricity, and he set about the demonstration of the fact. "The ac- count given by Dr. Stuber of Philadelphia, an intimate personal friend of Franklin, and pub- lished in one of the earliest editions of the works of the great philosopher, is as follows : — ' The plan which he ' had originally proposed was to erect on some high tower, or other elevated place, a sentry-box, from which should rise a pointed iron rod, insulated by being fixed in a cake of resin. Electrified clouds passing oyer this would, he conceived, impart to it a portion of their electricity, which would be rendered evi- dent to the senses by sparks bemg emitted when a key, a knuckle, or other conductor was pre- sented to it. Philadelphia at this time offered no opportunity of trying an experiment of this kind. Whilst Franklin was waiting for the erec- tion of a spire, it occurrred to him that he might have more ready access to the region of clouds by means of a common kite. He prepared one by attaching two cross-sticks to a silk handker- chief, which would not suffer so much from the rain as paper. To his upright stick was fixed an iron point. The string was, as usual, of hemp, except the lower end, which was silk. Where the hempen string terminated, a key was fastened. With this apparatus, on the appear- ance of a thunder-gust approaching, he went into the common, accompanied by his son, to whom alone he communicated his intentions, well knowing the ridicule which, too generally for the interest of science, awaits unsuccessful ex- periments in philosophy. He placed himself under a shed to avoid the rain. His kite was raised. A thunder-cloud passed over it. No signs of electricity appeared. He almost de- spaired of success, when suddenly he observed the loose fibres of his string move toward an erect position. He now pressed his knuckle to the key, and received a strong spark. How ex- quisite must his sensations have been at this moment! On his experiment depended the fate of his theory. Doubt and despair had begun to prevail, when the fact was ascertained in so clear a manner, that even the most incredulous could no longer withhold their assent. Repeated sparks were drawn from the key, a phial was charged, a shock given, and all the experiments made which are usually performed with elec- tricity.' And thus the identity of lightning and electricity was proved. . . . Franklin's proposi- tion to erect lightning rods which would convey the lightning to the ground, and so protect the buildings to which they were attached, found abundant opponents. . . . Nevertheless, public opinion became settled . . . that they did pro- tect buildings. . . . Then the philosophers raised a new controversy as to whether the conductors should be blunt or pointed ; Franklin, Cavendish, and Watson advocating points, and Wilson blunt ends. . . . The logic of experiment, however, showed the advantage of pointed conductors; and people persisted then in preferring them, as they 797 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. Galvani and Volta. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. have done ever since." — P. Benjamin, The Age of Electricity, ch. 3. A. D. 1753-1820. — The beginnings of the Electric Telegraph. — "The first actual sugges- tion of an electric telegraph was made in an anonymous letter published in the Scots Maga- zine at Edinburgh, February 17th, 1753. The letter is initialed ' C. M.,' and many attempts have been made to discover the author's identity. . . . The suggestions made in this letter were that a set of twenty -six wires should be stretched upon insulated supports between the two places which it was desired to put in connection, and at each end of every wire a metallic ball was to be suspended, having under it a letter of the alpha- bet inscribed upon a piece of paper. . . . The message was to be read off at the receiving sta- tion by observing the letters which were succes- sively attracted by their corresponding balls, as soon as the wires attached to the latter received a charge from the distant conductor. In 1787 Monsieur Lomond, of Paris, made the very im- portant step of reducing the twenty-six wires to one, and indicating the different letters by various combinations of simple movements of an indi- cator, consisting of a pith-ball suspended by means of a thread from a conductor in contact with the wire. ... In the year 1790 Chappe, the inventor of the semaphore, or optico-mechan- ical telegraph, which was in practical use pre- vious to the introduction of the electric telegraph, devised a means of communication, consisting of two clocks regulated so that the second hands moved in unison, and pointed at the same Instant to the same figures. ... In the early form of the apparatus, the exact moment at which the observer at the receiving station should read off the figure to which the hand pointed was indi- cated by means of a sound signal produced by the primitive method of striking a copper stew- pan, but the inventor soon adopted the plan of giving electrical signals instead of sound sig- nals. ... In 1795 Don Francisco Salva . . . suggested . . . that instead of twenty-six wires being used, one for each letter, six or eight wires only should be employed, each charged by a Leyden jar, and that different letters should be formed by means of various combinations of sig- nals from these. . . . Mr. (afterwards Sir Francis) Ronalds . . . took up the subject of telegraphy in the year 1816, and published an account of his experiments in 1833," based on the same idea as that of Chappe. . . . "Ronalds drew up a sort of telegraphic code by which words, and some- times even complete sentences, could be trans- mitted by only three discharges. . . . Ronalds completely proved the practicability of his plan, not only on [a] short underground line, . . . but also upon an overhead line some eight miles in length, constructed by carrying a telegraph wire backwards and forwards over a wooden frame- work erected in his garden at Hammersmith. . . . The first attempt to employ voltaic electric- ity in telegraphy was made by Don Francisco Salva, wliose frictional telegraph has already been referred to. On the 14th of May, 1800, Salva read a paper on ' Galvanism and its application to Telegraphy ' before the Academy of Sciences at Barcelona, in which he described a number of experiments which he had made in telegraphing over a line some 310 metres in length. ... A few years later he applied the then recent dis- covery of the Voltaic pile to the same purpose, the liberation of bubbles of gas by the decompo- sition of water at the receiving station being the method adopted for indicating the passage of the signals. A telegraph of a very similar character was devised by Sommering, and described in a paper communicated by the inventor to the Munich Academy of Sciences in 1809. Sommer- ing used a set of thirty-five wires corresponding to the twenty-five letters of the German alphabet and the ten numerals. . . . Oersted's discovery of the action of the electric current upon a sus- pended magnetic needle provided a new and much more hopeful method of applying the elec- tric current to telegraphy. The great French astronomer Laplace appears to have been the first to suggest this application of Oersted's dis- covery, and he was followed shortly afterwards by Ampere, who in the year 1830 read a paper before the Paris Academy of Sciences. " — G. W. De Tunzelmann, Electricity in Modern Life, ch. 9. A. D. 1786-1800. — Discoveries of Galvani and Volta. — "The fundamental experiment which led to the discovery of dynamical elec- tricity [1786] is due to Galvani, professor of anat- omy in Bologna. Occupied with investigations on the influence of electricity on the nervous ex- citability of animals, and especially of the frog, he observed that when the lumbar nerves of a dead frog were connected with the crural mus- cles by a metallic circuit, the latter became briskly contracted. . . . Galvani had some time before observed that the electricity of machines produced in dead frogs analogous contractions, and he attributed the phenomena first described to an electricity inherent in the animal. He as- sumed that this electricitj', which he called vital, fluid, passed from the nerves to the muscles byi the metallic arc, and was thus the cause of con- traction. This theory met with great support, ( especially among physiologists, but it was not without opponents. The most considerable of these was Alexander Volta, professor of physics in Pavia. Galvani's attention had been exclu- sively devoted to the nerves and muscles of the frog ; Volta's was directed upon the connecting metal. Resting on the observation, which Gal- vani had also made, that the contraction is more energetic when the connecting arc is composed of two metals than where there is only one, Volta attributed to the metals the active part in the phenomenon of contraction. He assumed that the disengagement of electricity was due to their contact, and that the animal parts only ofiiciated as conductors, and at the same time as a very sensitive electroscope. By means of the then recently invented electroscope, Volta devised several modes of showing the disengagement of electricity on the contact of metals. ... A mem- orable controversy arose between Galvani and Volta. The latter was led to give greater exten- sion to his contact theory, and propounded the principle that when two heterogeneous sub- stances are placed in contact, one of them always assumes the positive and the other the negative electrical condition. In this form Volta's theory obtained the assent of the principal philosophers of his time." — A. Ganot, Elementary Treatise on P/iysici ; tr. by Atkinson, bk. 10, ch. 1. — Volta's theory, however, though somewhat misleading, did not prevent his making what was probably the greatest step in the science up to this time, in the invention (about 1800) of the Voltaic pile, 798 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. Oersted and Ampere. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. the first generator of electrical energy by chemi- cal means, and the forerunner of the vast number of types of the modern "battery." A. D. 1810-1890. — The Arc light.— "The earliest instance of applying Electricity to the production of light was in 1810, by Sir Hum- phrey Davy, who found that when the points of two carbon rods whose other ends were connected by wires with a powerful primary battery were brought into contact, and then drawn a little way apart, the Electric current still continued to jump across the gap, forming what is now termed an Electric Arc. . . . Various contrivances have been devised for automatically regulating the position of the two carbons. As early as 1847, a lamp was patented by Staite, in which the car- bon rods were fed together by clockwork. . . . Similar devices were produced by Poucault and others, but the first really successful arc lamp was Serrin's, patented in 1857, which has not only itself survived until the present day, but has had its main features reproduced in many other lamps. . . . The JablochkofE Candle (1876), in which the arc was formed between the ends of a pair of carbon rods placed side by side, and sepa- rated by a layer of insulating material, which slowly consumed as the carbons burnt down, did good service in accustoming the public to the new illuminant. Since then the inventions by Brush, Thomson-Houston, and others have done much to bring about its adoption for lighting large rooms, streets, and spaces out of doors." — J. B. Verity, Electricity up to Date for Light, Power, and Trac- tion, ch. 3. A. D. 1820-1825. — Oersted, Ampfere, and the discovery of the Electro-Magnet. — "There is little chance . . . that the discoverer of the mag- net, or the discoverer and inventor of the mag- netic needle, will ever be known by name, or that even the locality and date of the discovery will ever be determined [see CoMP.\ss]. . . . The magnet and magnetism received their first scien- tific treatment at the hands of Dr. Gilbert. Dur- ing the two centuries succeeding the publication of his work, the science of magnetism was much cultivated. . . . The development of the science went along parallel with that of the science of electricity . . . although the latter was more ' fruitful in novel discoveries and unexpected ap- plications than the former. It is not to be imag- ined that the many close resemblances of the two classes of phenomena were allowed to pass un- noticed. . . . There was enough resemblance to suggest an intimate relation ; and the connecting link was sought for by many eminent philoso- phers during the last years of the eighteenth and the earlier years of the present century. " — T. C. Mendenhall, A Century of Electricity, ch. 3. — "The effect which an electric current, flowing in a wire, can exercise upon a neighbouring com- pass needle was discovered by Oersted in 1820. This first announcement of the possession of magnetic properties by an electric current was followed speedily by the researches of Ampfere, Arago, Davy, and by the devices of several other experimenters, including De la Rive's floating battery and coil, Schweigger's multiplier, Cum- ming's galvanometer, Faraday's apparatus for rotation of a permanent magnet. Marsh's vibrat- ing pendulum and Barlow's rotating star-wheel. But it was not until 1835 that the electromagnet was invented. Arago announced, on 25th Sep- tember 1820, that a copper wire uniting the poles of a voltaic cell, and consequently traversed by an electric current, could attract iron filings to itself laterally. In the same communication he described how he had succeeded in communicat- ing permanent magnetism to steel needles laid at right angles to the copper wire, and how, on showing this experiment to Ampere, the latter had suggested that the magnetizing action would be more intense if for the straight copper wire there were substituted one wrapped in a helix, in the centre of which the steel needle might be placed. This suggestion was at once carried out by the two philosophers. ' A copper wire wound in a helix was terminated by two rectilinear por- tions which could be adapted, at will, to the op- posite poles of a powerful horizontal voltaic pile ; a steel needle wrapped up in paper was intro- duced into the helix. ' ' Now, after some minutes' sojourn in the helix, the steel needle had received a sufliciently strong dose of magnetism.' Arago then wound upon a little glass tube some short helices, each about 2^ inches long, coiled altern- ately right-handedly and left-handedly, and found that on introducing into the glass tube a steel wire, he was able to produce ' consequent poles ' at the places where the winding was re- versed. AmpSre, on October 23rd, 1820, read a memoir, claiming that these facts confirmed his theory of magnetic actions. Davy had, also, in 1820, surrounded with temporary coils of wire the steel needles upon which he was experiment- ing, and had shown that the flow of electricity around the coil could confer magnetic power upon the steel needles. . . . The electromagnet, in the form which can first claim recognition ... was devised by William Sturgeon, and is described by him in the paper which he contributed to the Society of Arts in 1825."— S. P. Thompson, The Electromagnet, ch. 1. A. D. 1825-1874.- The Perfected Telegraph. — " The European philosophers kept on groping. At the end of five years [after Oersted's discov- ery], one of them reached an obstacle which he made up his mind was so entirely insurmountable, that it rendered the electric telegraph an impossi- bility for all future time. This was [1825] Mr. Peter Barlow, fellow of the Royal Society, who had encountered the question whether the length- ening of the conducting wire would produce any effect in diminishing the energy of the current transmitted, and had undertaken to resolve the problem. . . . ' I found [he said] such a consid- erable diminution with only 200 feet of wire as at once to convince me of the impracticability of the scheme.'. . . The year following the an- nouncement of Barlow's conclusions, a young graduate of the Albany (N. Y.) Academy — by name Joseph Henry — was appointed to the pro- fessorship of mathematics in that institution. Henry there began the series of scientific investi- gations which is now historic. . . . Up to that time, electro-magnets had been made with a single coil of naked wire wound spirally around the core, with large intervals between the strands. The core was insulated as a whole : the wire was not insulated at all. Professor Schweigger, who had previously invented the multiplying galvano- meter, had covered his wires with silk. Henry followed this idea, and, instead of a single coil of wire, used several. . . . Barlow had said that the gentle current of the galvanic battery became so weakened, after traversing 200 feet of wire, that it was idle to consider the possibility of 799 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. ne Telegraph. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. making it pass over even a mile of conductor and then affect a magnet. Henry's reply was to point out that the trouble lay in the way Bar- low's magnet was made. . . . Make the magnet so that the diminished current will exercise its full effect. Instead of using one short coil, through which the current can easily slip, and do nothing, make a coil of many turns ; that in- creases the magnetic field : make it of fine wire, and of higher resistance. And then, to prove the truth of his discovery, Henry put up the first electro-magnetic telegraph ever constructed. In the academy at Albany, in 1831, he suspended 1,060 feet of bell-wire, with a battery at one end and one of his magnets at the other; and he made the magnet attract and release its armature. The armature struck a bell, and so made the signals. Annihilating distance in this way was only one part of Henry's discovery. He had also found, that, to obtain the greatest dynamic effect close at hand, the battery should be com- posed of a very few cells of large surface, com- bined with a coil or coils of short coarse wire around the magnet, — conditions just the reverse of those necessary when the magnet was to be worked at a distance. Now, he argued, suppose the magnet with the coarse short coil, and the large-surface battery, be put at the receiving station ; and the current coming over the line be used simply to make and break the circuit of that local battery. . . . This is the principle of the telegraphic 'relay.' In 1835 Henry worked a telegraph-line in that way at Princeton. And thus the electro-magnetic telegraph was com- pletely invented and demonstrated. There was nothing left to do, but to put up the posts, string the lines, and attach the instruments." — P. Ben- jamin, The Age of Electricity, ch. 11. — "At last we leave the territory of theory and experiment and come to that of practice. ' The merit of in- venting the modern telegraph, and applying it on a large scale for public use, is, beyond all question, due to Professor Morse of the United States. ' So writes Sir David Brewster, and the best authorities on the question substantially agree with him. . . . Leaving for future con- sideration Morse's telegraph, which was not in- troduced until five years after the time when he was impressed with the notion of its feasibilit}', we may mention the telegraph of Gauss and Weber of Gottingen. In 1833, thej' erected a telegraphic wire between the Astronomical and Magnetical Observatory of Gottingen, and the Physical Cabinet of the University, for the purpose of carrying intelligence from the one locality to the other. To these great philosophers, however, rather the theory than the practice of Electric Telegraphy was indebted. Their apparatus was so improved as to be almost a new invention by Steinhill of Munich, who. In 1837 . . . succeeded in sending a current from one end to the other of a wire 36,000 feet in length, the action of which caused two needles to vibrate from side to side, and strike a bell at each movement. To Stein- hill the honour is due of having discovered the important and extraordinary fact that the earth might be used as a part of the circuit of an electric current. The introduction of the Elec- tric Telegraph into England dates from the same year as that in which Steinhill's experiments took place. William Fothergill Cooke, a gentle- man who held a commission in the Indian army, returned from India on leave of absence, and afterwards, because of his bad health, resigned his commission, and went to Heidelberg to study anatomy. In 1836, Professor Monke, of Heidel- berg, exhibited an electro-telegraphic experiment, ' in which electric currents, passing along a con- ducting wire, conveyed signals to a distant station by the deflexion of a magnetic needle enclosed in Schweigger's galvanometer or multiplier. ' . . . Cooke was so struck with this experiment, that he immediately resolved to apply it to purposes of higher utility than the illustration of a lecture. ... In a short time he produced two telegraphs of different construction. When his plans were completed, he came to England, and in February, 1837, having consulted Faraday and Dr. Roget on the construction of the electric-magnet em- ployed in a part of his apparatus, the latter gen- tleman advised him to apply to Professor Wheat- stone. . . . The result of the meeting of Cooke and Wheatstone was that thej' resolved to unite their several discoveries; and in the month of May 1837, they took out their first patent ' for improvements in giving signals and sounding alarms in distant places by means of electric cur- rents transmitted through metallic circuits.' . . . By-and-by, as might probably have been antici- pated, difficulties arose between Cooke and Wheatstone, as to whom the main credit of intro- ducing the Electric Telegraph into England was due. . . . Mr. Cooke accused Wheatstone (with a certain amount of justice, it should seem) of entirely ignoring his claims ; and in doing so Mr. Cooke appears to have rather exaggerated his own services. Most will readily agree to the wise words of Sir. Sabine : ' It was once a popu- lar fallacy in England that Jlessrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were the original inventors of the Electric Telegraph. The Electric Telegraph had, properly speaking, no inventor; it grew up as we have seen little by little. " — H. J. Nicoll, Oreat Movements, pp. 434-429. — "In the latter part of the year 1833, Samuel F. B. Morse, an American artist, while on a voyage from France to the United States, conceived the idea of an electro- magnetic telegraph which should consist of the following parts, viz: A single circuit of con- ductors from some suitable generator of elec- tricity ; a system of signs, consisting of dots or points and spaces to represent numerals ; a method of causing the electricity to mark or imiirint these signs upon a strip or ribbon of paper by the mechanical action of an electro-magnet oper- ating upon the paper by means of a lever, armed at one end with a pen or pencil ; and a method of moving the paper ribbon at a uniform rate by means of clock-work to receive the characters. ... In the autumn of the year 1835 he con- structed the first rude working model of his in- vention. . . . The first public exhibition . . . was on the 2d of September, 1837, on which oc- casion the marking was successfully effected through one third of a mile of wire. Immediately afterwards a recording instrument was con- structed . . . which was subsequently employed upon the first experimental line between Wash- ington and Baltimore. This line was constructed in 1843-44 under an appropriation by Congress, and was completed by May of the latter year. On the 27th of that month the first despatch was transmitted from Washington to Baltimore. . . . The experimental line was originally constructed with two wires, as Morse was not at that time acquainted with the discovery of Steinheil, that 800 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. ^« Dynamo. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERT. the earth might be used to complete the circuit. Accident, liowever, soon demonstrated this fact. . The following year (1845) telegraph lines began to be built over other routes. ... In Oc- tober, 1851, a convention of deputies from the German States of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Saxony, met at Vienna, for the purpose of establishing a common and uniform telegraphic system, under the name of the Ger- man-Austrian Telegraph Union. The various systems of telegraphy then in use were subjected to the most thorough examination and discussion. The convention decided with great unanimity that the Morse system was practically far superior to all others, and it was accordingly adopted. Prof. Steinheil, although himself ... the in- ventor of a telegraphic system, with a magna- nimity that does him high honor, strongly urged upon the convention the adoption of the Ameri- can system.". . . The first of the printing tele- graphs was patented in the United States by Royal E. House, in 1846. The Hughes printing telegraph, a remarkable piece of mechanism, was patented by David E. Hughes, of Kentucky, in 1855. A system known as the automatic method, in which the signals representing letters are transmitted over the line through the instru- mentality of mechanism, was originated by Alexander Bain of Edinburgh, whose first patents were taken out in 1846. An autographic tele- graph, transmitting despatches in the reproduced hand-writing of the sender, was brought out in 1850, by F. C. Bakewell, of London. The same result was afterwards accomplished with varia- tions of method by Chas. Cros, of Paris, Abbe Caseli, of Florence, and others; but none of these inventions has been extensively used. " The possibility of making use of a single wire for the simultaneous transmission of two or more communications seems to have first sug- gested itself to Jloses G. Farmer, of Boston, about the year 1852." The problem was first solved with partial success by Dr. Gintl, on the line between Prague and Vienna, in 1853, but more perfectly by Carl Frischen, of Hanover, in the following year. Other inventors followed in the same field, among them Thomas A. Edison, of New Jersey, who was led by his experiments finally, in 1874 to devise a system "which was destined to furnish the basis of the first practical solution of the curious and interesting problem of quadruplex telegraphy. "—G. B. Prescott, Elec- tricity and the Electric Telegraph, ch. 29-40. A. D. 1831-1872.— Dynamo-Electrical Ma- chines, and Electric Motors.— " The discovery of induction by Faraday, in 1831, gave rise to the construction of magneto-electro machines. The first of such machines that was ever made was probably a machine that never came into practical use, the description of which was given in a letter, signed ' P. M. , ' and directed to Fara- day, published in the Philosophical Magazine of 2nd August, 1832. We learn from this descrip- tion that the essential parts of this machine were six horse-shoe magnets attached to a disc, which rotated in front of six coils of wire wound on bobbins." Sept. 3rd, 1832, Pixii constructed a machine in which a single horse-shoe magnet was made to rotate before two soft iron cores, wound with wire. In this machine he introduced the commutator, an essential element in all mod- ern continuous current machines. "Almost at the same time, Ritchie, Saxton, and Clarke con- structed similar machines. Clarke's is the best known, and is still popular in the small and portable ' medical ' machines so commonly sold. . . . A larger machine [was] constructed by Stohrer (1843), on the same plan as Clarke's, but with six coils instead of two, and three com- pound magnets instead of one. . . . The machines, constructed by Nollet (1849) and Shepard (1856) had still more magnets and coils. Shepard'a machine was modified by Van Malderen, and was called the Alliance machine. ... Dr. Wer- ner Siemens, while considering how the inducing effect of the magnet can be most thoroughly utilised, and how to arrange the coils in the most efficient manner for this purpose, was led in 1857 to devise the cylindrical armature. . . . Sinste- deninl851 pointed out that the current of the generator may itself be utilised to excite the magnetism of the field magnets. . . . Wilde [in 1863] carried out this suggestion by using a small steel permanent magnet and larger electro mag- nets. . . . The next great improvement of these machines arose from the discovery of what may be called the dynamo-electric principle. This principle may be stated as follows: — For the generation of currents by magneto-electric in- duction it is not necessary that the machine should be furnished with permanent magnets; the residual or temporary magnetism of soft iron quickly rotating is sufficient for the purpose. . . . In 1867 the principle was clearly enunciated and used simultaneously, but independently, by Siemens and by Wheatstone. ... It was in February, 1867, that Dr. C. W. Siemens' clas- sical paper on the conversion of dynamical into electrical energy without the aid of permanent magnetism was read before the Royal Society. Strangely enough, the discovery of the same principle was enunciated at the same meeting of the Society by Sir Charles Wheatstone. . . . The starting-point of a great improvement in dynamo-electric machines, was the discovery by Pacinotti of the ring armature ... in 1860. . . . Gramme, in 1871, modified the ring armature, and constructed the first machine, in which he made use of the Gramme ring and the dynamic principle. In 1872, Hefner-Alteneck, of the firm of Siemens and Halske, constructed a ma- chine in which the Gramme ring is replaced by a drum armature, that is to say, by a cylinder round which wire is wound. . . . Either the Pacinotti-Gramme ring armature, or the Hefner- Alteneck drum armature, is now adopted by nearly all constructors of dynamo-electric ma- chines, the parts varying of course in minor de- tails." The history of the dynamo since has been one of a gradual perfection of parts, result- ing in the production of a great number of types, which can not here even be mentioned. — A. R. von Urbanitzky, Electricity in the Service of Man, pp. 227-242.— S. P. Thompson, Dynamo Electrical Machines.— Electric Motors.— "It has been known for forty years that every form of elec- tric motor which operated on the principle of mutual mechanical force between a magnet and a conducting wire or coil could also be made to act as a generator of induced currents by the re- verse operation of producing the motion mechan- ically. And when, starting from the researches of Siemens, Wilde, Nollet, Holmes and Gramme, the modem forms of magneto-electric and dyna- mo-electric machines began to come into com- mercial use, it was discovered that any one or 51 801 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. Light and Locomotion. ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. the modern machines designed as a generator of currents constituted a far more efficient electric motor than any of the previous forms which had been designed specially as motors. It required no new discovery of the law of reversibility to enable the electrician to understand this; but 1o convince the world required actual experiment." — A. Guillemin, Ekctvicity and Magnetum, pt. 2. ch. 10. sect. 3. A. D. 1835-1889.— The Electric Railway.— "Thomas Davenport, a poor blacksmith of Bran- don, Vt., constructed what might be termed the first electric railway. The invention was crude and of little practical value, but the idea was there. In 1835 he exhibited in Springfield, Mass. , a small model electric engine running upon a circular track, the circuit being furnished by pri- mary batteries carried in the car. Three years later, Robert Davidson, of Aberdeen, Scotland, began his experiments in this direction. . . . He constructed quite a powerful motor, which was mounted upon a truck. Forty battery cells, car- ried on the car, furnished power to propel the motor. The battery elements were composed of amalgamated zinc and iron plates, the exciting liquid being dilute sulphuric acid. This locomo- tive was run successfully on several steam rail- roads in Scotland, the speed attained was four miles an hour, but this machine was afterwards destroyed by some malicious person or persons while it was being taken home to Aberdeen. In 1849 Moses Farmer exhibited an electric engine which drew a small car containing two persons. In 1851, Dr. Charles Grafton Page, of Salem, Mass, , perfected an electric engine of consider- able power. On April 29 of that year the engine was attached to a car and a trip was made from Washington to Bladensburg, over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad track. The highest speed at- tained was nineteen miles an hour. The electric power was furnished by one hundred Grove cells carried on the engine. . . . The same year, Thomas Hall, of Boston, Mass., built a small electric locomotive called the Volta. The current was furnished by two Grove battery cells which were conducted to the rails, thence through the wheels of the locomotive to the motor. This was the first instance of the current being supplied to the motor on a locomotive from a stationary source. It was exhibited at the Charitable Me- chanics fair by him in 1860. ... In 1879, Messrs. Siemen and Halske, of Berlin, constructed and operated an electric railway at the Industrial Ex- position. A third rail placed in the centre of the two outer rails, supplied the current, which ■was taken up into the motor through a slid- ing contact under the locomotive. ... In 1880 Thomas A. Edison constructed an experimental road near his laboratory in Menlo Park, N. J. The power from the locomotive was transferred to the car by belts running to and from the shafts of each. The current was taken from and re- turned through the rails. Early in the year of 1881 the Lichterfelde, Germany, electric railway ■was put into operation. It is a third rail sj'stem and is still running at the present time. This may be said to be the first commercial electric railway constructed. In 1883 the Daft Electric Co. equipped and operated quite successfully an electric system on the Saratoga & Mt. McGregor Railroad, at Saratoga, N. Y." During the next five or six years numerous electric railroads, more or less experimental, were built. ' ' Octo- ber 31, 1888, the Council Bluffs & Omaha Rail- way and Bridge Co. was first operated by elec- tricity, they using the Thomson-Houston sys- tem. The same year the Thomson-Houston Co. equipped the Highland Division of the Lynn & Boston Horse Railway at Lynn, Mass. Horse railways now began to be equipped with electric- ity all over the world, and especially in the United States. In February, 1889, tlie Thomson- Houston Electric Co. had equipped the line from Bowdoiu Square, Boston, to Harvard Square, Cambridge, of the West End Railway with elec- tricity and operated twenty cars, since which time it has increased its electrical apparatus, until now it is the largest electric railway line in the world." — E. Trevert, Electric Railway Engineering, a pp. A. A. D. 1841-1880.— The Incandescent Elec- tric Light. — "AVhile the arc lamp is well adapted for hghting large areas requiring a powerful, diffused light, similar to sunlight, and hence is suitable for outdoor illumination, and for work- shops, stores, public buildings, and factories, especially those where colored fabrics are pro- duced, its use in ordinary dwellings, or for a desk light in offices, is impractical, a softer, steadier, and more economical light being re- quired. Various attempts to modify the arc- light by combining it with the incandescent were made in the earlier stages of electric lighting. . . . The first strictly incandescent lamp was in- vented in 1841 by Frederick de Molyens of Chel- tenham, England, and was constructed on the simple principle of the incandescence produced by the high resistance of a platinum wire to the passage of the electric current. In 1849 Petrie employed iridium for the same purpose, also alloys of iridium and platinum, and iridium and carbon. In 1845 J. W. Starr of Cincinnati first proposed the use of carbon, and, associated with King, his English agent, produced, through the financial aid of the philanthropist Peabody, an incandescent lamp. ... In all these early ex- periments, the battery was the source of electric supply; and the comparatively small current re- quired for the incandescent light as compared with that required for the arc light, was an argu- ment in favor of the former. . . . Still, no sub- stantial progress was made with either sj'stem till the invention of the dynamo resulted in the practical development of both systems, that of the incandescent following that of the arc. Among the first to make incandescent lighting a prac- tical success were Sawyer and Man of New York, and Edison. For a long time, Edison experi- mented with platinum, using fine platinum wire coiled into a spiral, so as to concentrate the heat, and produce incandescence; the same current producing only a red heat when the wire, whether of platinum or other metal, is stretched out. . . . Failing to obtain satisfactory results from plati- num, Edison turned his attention to carbon, the superiority of which as an incandescent illumin- ant had already been demonstrated; but its rapid consumption, as shown by the Reynier and similar lamps, being unfavorable to its use as compared with the durability of platin^um and iridium, the problem was, to secure the superior illumination of the carbon, and reduce or pre- vent its consumption. As this consumption ivas due chiefly to oxidation, it was questionable whether the superior illumination were not due to the same cause, and whether, if the carbon 802 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. The Telephone ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY. ■were inclosed in a glass globe, from which oxy- gen was eliminated, the same illumination could be obtained. Another diflSculty of equal mag- nitude was to obtain a sufficiently perfect va- cuum, and maintain it in a hermetically sealed globe inclosing the carbon, and at the same time maintain electric connection with the generator through the glass by a metal conductor, subject to expansion and contraction different from that of the glass, by the change of temperature due to the passage of the electric current. Sawyer and Man attempted to solve this problem by fill- ing the globe with nitrogen, thus preventing combustion by eliminating the oxygen. . . . The results obtained by this method, which at one time attracted a great deal of attention, were not sufficiently satisfactory to become practical; and Edison and others gave their preference to the vacuum method, and sought to overcome the difficulties connected with it. The invention of the mercurial air pump, with its subsequent im- provements, made it possible to obtain a suf- ficiently perfect vacuum, and the difficulty of introducing the current into the interior of the globe was overcome by imbedding a fine plati- num wire in the glass, connecting the inclosed carbon with the external circuit ; the expansion and contraction of the platinum not differing sufficiently from that of the glass, in so fine a wire, as to impair the vacuum. . . . The car- bons made by Edison under his first patent in 1879, were obtained from brown paper or card- board. . . . They were very fragile and short- lived, and consequently were soon abandoned. In 1880 he patented the process which, with some modifications, he still adheres to. In this process he uses filaments of bamboo, which are taken from the interior, fibrous portion of the plant."— P. Atkinson, Elements of Electric Light- ing, ch. 8. A. D. 1854-1866.— The Atlantic Cable.— ' ' Cyrus Field . . . established a company in America (in 1854), which . . . obtained the right of landing cables in Newfoundland for fifty years. Soundings were made in 1856 between Ireland and Newfoundland, showing a maximum depth of 4,400 metres. Having succeeded after several attempts in laying a cable between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Field founded the Atlantic Telegraph Company in England. . . . The length of the . . . cable [used] was 4,000 kilometres, and was carried by the two ships Agamemnon and Niagara. The distance between the two sta- tions on the coasts was 2,640 kilometres. The laying of the cable commenced on the 7th of August, 1857, at Valentia (Ireland) ; on the third day the cable broke at a depth of 3,660 metres,and the expedition had to return. A second expedi- tion was sent in 1858; the two ships met each other half-way, the ends of the cable were joined, and the lowering of it commenced in both direc- tions; 149 kilometres were thus lowered, when a fault in the cable was discovered. It had, there- fore, to be brought on board again, and was broken during the process. After it had been repaired, and when 476 kilometres had been already laid, another fault was discovered, which caused another breakage ; this time it was impossible to repair it, and the expedition was again unsuccess- ful, and had to return. In spite of the repeated failures, two ships were again sent out in the same year, and this time one end of the cable was landed in Ireland, and the other at New- foundland. The length of the sunk cable was 3,745 kilometres. Field's first telegram was sent on the 7th of August, from America to Ireland. The insulation of the cable, however, became more defective every day, and failed altogether on the 1st of September. From the experience obtained, it was concluded that it was possible to lay a trans- Atlantic cable, and the company, after consulting a number of professional men, again set to work. . . . The Great Eastern was employed in laying this cable. This ship, which is 211 metres long, 25 metres broad, and 16 metres in height, carried a crew of 500 men, of which 120 were electricians and engineers, 179 mechan- ics and stokers, and 115 sailors. The manage- ment of all affairs relating to the laying of the cable was entrusted to Canning. The coast cable was laid on the 31st of July, and the end of it was connected with the Atlantic cable on the 23rd. After 1,326 kilometres had been laid, a fault was discovered, an iron wire was found stuck right across the cable, and Canning considered the mis- chief to have been done with a malevolent pur- pose. On the 2nd of August, 2,196 kilometres of cable were sunk, when another fault was dis- covered. While the cable was being repaired it broke, and attempts to recover it at the time were all unsuccessful ; in consequence of this the Great Eastern had to return without having completed the task. A new company, the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, was formed in 1866, and at once entrusted Messrs. Glass, Elliott and Com- pany with the construction of a new cable of 3,000 kilometres. Different arrangements were made for the outer envelope of the cable, and the Great Eastern was once more equipped to give effect to the experiments which had just been made. The new expedition was not only to lay a new cable, but also to take up the end of the old one, and join it to a new piece, and thus obtain a second telegraph line. The sinking again commenced in Ireland on the 13th of July, 1866, and it was finished on the 27th. On the 4th of August, 1866, the Trans- Atlantic Telegraph Line was declared open."— A. R. von Urbanitzky, Electricity in the Service of Man, pp. 767-768. A. D. 1876-1892.— The Telephone.- "The first and simplest of all magnetic telephones is the Bell Telephone. " In " the first form of this instru- ment, constructed by Professor Graham Bell, in 1876. . . a harp of steel rods was attached to the poles of a permanent magnet. . . . When we sing into a piano, certain of the strings of the instru- ment are set in vibration sympathetically by the action of the voice with different degrees of amplitude, and a sound, which is an approxima- tion to the vowel uttered, is produced from the piano. Theory shows that, had the piano a much larger number of strings to the octave, the vowel sounds would be perfectly reproduced. It was upon this principle that Bell constructed his first telephone. The expense of constructing such an apparatus, however, deterred Bell from making the attempt, and he sought to simplify the apparatus before proceeding further in this direction. After many experiments with more or less unsatisfactory results, he constructed the instrument . . . which he exhibited at Philadel- phia in 1876. In this apparatus, the transmitter was formed by an electro-magnet, through which a current flowed, and a membrane, made of gold- beater's skin, on which was placed as a sort of armature, a piece of soft Iron, which thus 803 ELECTRICAL DISCOVERT. ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES. vibrated in front of the electromagnet ■when the membrane was thrown into sonorous vibration. ... It is quite clear that when we speak into a Bell transmitter only a small fraction of the energy of the sonorous vibrations of the voice can be converted into electric currents, and that these currents must be extremely weak. Edison applied himself to discover some means by which lie could increase the strength of these cur- rents. Elisha Gray had proposed to use the varia- tion of resistance of a fine platinum wire attached to a diaphragm dipping into water, and hoped that the variation of extent of surface in contact would so vary the strength of current as to re- produce sonorous vibrations; but there is no record of this experiment having been tried. Edison proposed to utilise the fact that the resist- ance of carbon varied under pressure. He had independently discovered this peculiarity of car- bon, but it had been previously described b}' Du Moncel. . . . The first carbon transmitter was constructed in 1878 by Edison. "^ — W. H. Preece, and J. Maier, The Telephoiu., ch. 3—1. — In a pam- phlet distributed at the Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893, entitled "Exhibit of the American Bell Telephone Co." the following statements are made: "At the Centennial Exposition, in Phila- delphia, in 1876, was given the first general pub- lic exhibition of the telephone by its inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. To-day, seventeen years later, more than half a million instruments are in daily use in the United States alone, six hundred million talks by telephone are held every year, and the human voice is carried over a distance of twelve hundred miles without loss of sound or syllable. The first use of the telephone for business pur- poses was over a single wire connecting only two telephones. At once the need of general inter- communication made itself felt. In the cities and larger towns exchanges were established and all the subscribers to any one exchange were enabled to talk to one another through a central office. Means were then devised to connect two or more exchanges by trunk lines, thus affording means of communication between all the sub- scribers of all the exchanges so connected. This ■work has been pushed forward until now have been gathered into what may be termed one great exchange all the important cities from Augusta on the east to Milwaukee on the west, and from Burlington and Buffalo on the north to Washington on the south, bringing more than one half the people of this country and a much larger proportion of the business interests, within talking distance of one another. . . . The lines which connect Chicago with Boston, via New York, are of copper wire of extra size. It is about one sixth of an inch in diameter, and ■weighs 435 pounds to the mile. Hence each cir- cuit contains 1,044,000 pounds of copper. . . . In the United States there are over a quarter of a million exchange subscribers, and . . . these make use of the telephone to carry on 600,000,000 con- versations annually. There is hardly a city or town of 5,000 inhabitants that has not its Tele- phone Exchange, and these are so knit together by connecting lines that intercommunication is constant." The number of telephones in use in the United States, on the 20th of Becember in each year since the first introduction, is given as follows: 1877, 5,187; 1878, 17.567; 1879, 52,517; 1880, 123,380; 1881, 180,592; 1882, 237,728; 1883, 298,580; 1884, 325,574; 1885, 330,040; 1886, 353,- 518; 1887,380,277; 1888, 411,511; 1889,444,861; 1890, 483,790; 1891, 512,407; 1892, 552,720. ELEPHANT, Order of the.— A Danish order of knighthood iu.stituted in 1693 by King Chris- tian V. ELEPHANTINE. See Egypt: The Old Empire and the Middle Empiee. ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES, The.— Among the ancient Greeks. " the mysteries were a source of faith and hope to the initiated, as are the churches of modern times. Secret doctrines, regarded as holy, and to be kept with inviolable fidelity, were handed down in these brother- hoods, and no doubt ■n^ere fondly believed to contain a saving grace by those ■n-ho were ad- mitted, amidst solemn and imposing rites, under the veil of midnight, to hear the tenets of the ancient faith, and the promises of blessings to come to those who, with sincerity of heart and pious trust, took the obligations upon them. The Eleusinian mysteries were the most impos- ing and venerable. Their origin extended back into a mythical antiquity, and they were among the few forms of Greek worship which were xinder the superintendence of hereditary priest- hoods. Thirlwall thinks that ' they were the re- mains of a worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and its attendant rites, grounded on a view of Nature less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both philo- sophical thought and religious feeling. ' This con- clusion is still further confirmed by the moral and religious tone of the poets, — such as jEschy- lus, — whose ideas on justice, sin and retribution are as solemn and elevated as those of a Hebre'W prophet. The secrets, whatever they were, were never revealed in express terms ; but Isocrates uses some remarkable expressions, when speak- ing of their importance to the condition of man. 'Those who are initiated,' says he 'entertain sweeter hopes of eternal life ' ; and how could this be the case, unless there were imparted at Eleusis the doctrine of eternal life, and some idea of its state and circumstances more compati- ble with an elevated conception of the Deity and of the human soul than the vague and shadowy images which haunted the popular mind. The Eleusinian communion embraced the most emi- nent men from every part of Greece, — statesmen, poets, philosophers, and generals; and when Greece became a part of the Roman Empire, the greatest minds of Rome drew instruction and consolation from its doctrines. The ceremonies of initiation — which took place every year in the early autumn, a beautiful season in Attica — were a splendid ritual, attracting visitors from every part of the world. The processions moving from Athens to Eleusis over the Sacred Way, some- times numbered twenty or thirty thousand peo- ple, and the exciting scenes were well calculated to leave a durable impression on susceptible minds. . . . The formula of the dismissal, after the initiation 'U'as over, consisted in the mysteri- ous words ' konx,' ' ompa.x ' ; and this is the only Eleusinian secret that has illuminated the world from the recesses of the temple of Demeter and Persephone. But it is a striking illustration of the value attached to these rites and doctrines, that, in moments of extremest peril — as of im- pending shipwreck, or massacre by a victorious enemj', — men asked one another, ' Are you in- itiated ? ' as if this were the anchor of their hopes 804 ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES. ELTEKEH. for another life. " — C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern, c. 2, led. 10. — " The Eleusinian mys- teries continued to be celebrated during the whole of the second half of the fourth century, till they were put an end to by the destruction of the tem- ple at Eleusis, and by the devastation of Greece in the invasion of the Goths under Alaric in 395 " (see Goths: A. D. 395).— W. Smith, Mte to Oih- bon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ck. 25. Also in : R. Brown, ne Great Dionysiak Myth, ch. 6, sect. 2. — J. J. I. von DoUinger, The Gentile and the Jeic, hk. 3 (v. 1). — See, also, Eleusis. ELEUSIS. — Eleusis was originally one of the twelve confederate townships into which Attica was said to have been divided before the time of Theseus. It " was advantageously situ- ated [about fourteen miles N. W. of Athens] on a height, at a small distance from the shore of an extensive bay, to which there is access only through narrow channels, at the two extremities of the island of Salamis : its position was import- ant, as commanding the shortest and most level route by land from Athens to the Isthmus by the pass which leads at the foot of Mount Cerata along the shore to Megara. . . . Eleusis was built at the eastern end of a low rocky hill, which lies parallel to the sea-shore. . . . The eastern extremity of the hill was levelled artificially for the reception of the Hierum of Ceres and the other sacred buildings. Above these are the traces of an Acropolis. A triangular space of about 500 yards each side, lying between the hill and the shore, was occupied by the town of Eleusis. . . . To those who approached Eleusis from Athens, the sacred buildings standing on the eastern extremity of the height concealed the greater part of the town, and on a nearer ap- proach presented a succession of magnificent ob- jects, well calculated to heighten the solemn grandeur of the ceremonies and the awe and rev- erence of the MystiE in their initiation. ... In the plurality of enclosures, in the magnificence of the pyla; or gateways, in the absence of any general symmetry of plan, in the small auxiliary temples, we recognize a great resemblance be- tween the sacred buildings of Eleusis and the Egyptian Hiera of Thebes and Philaj. And this resemblance is the more remarkable, as the De- meter of Attica was the Isis of Egypt. We can- not suppose, however, that the plan of all these buildings was even thought of when the worship of Ceres was established at Eleusis. They were the progressive creation of successive ages. . . . Under the Roman Empire ... it was fashion- able among the higher order of Romans to pass some time at Athens in the study of philosophy and to be initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries. Hence Eleusis became at that time one of the most frequented places in Greece ; and perhaps it was never so populous as under the emperors of the first two centuries of our sera. During the two following centuries, its mysteries were the chief support of declining polytheism, and almost the only remaining bond of national union among tiie Greeks ; but at length the destructive visit of the Goths in the year 396, the extinction of paganism and the ruin of maritime commerce, left Eleusis deprived of every source of pros- perity, except those which are inseparable from its fertile plain, its noble bay, and its position on the road from Attica to the Isthmus. . . . The village still preserves the ancient name, no further altered than is customary in Romaic conver- sions." — W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, V. 2 ; 2'he Demi, sect. 5. ELGIN, Lord. — The Indian administration of. See IsDix: A. D. 1862-1876. ELIS. — Elis was an ancient Greek state, occupying the country on the western coast of Peloponnesus, adjoining Arcadia, and between Messenia at the south and Achaia on the north. It was noted for the fertility of its soil and the rich yield of its fisheries. But Elis owed greater importance to the inclusion within its territory of the sacred groimd of Olympia, where the cele- bration of the most famous festival of Zeus came to be established at an early time. The Elians had acquired Olympia by conquest of the city and territory of Pisa, to which it originally be- longed, and the presidency of the Olympic games was always disputed with them by the latter. Elis was the close ally of Sparta down to the year B. C. 421, when a bitter quarrel arose between them, and Elis suffered heavily in the wars which ensued. It was afterwards at war with the Arcadians, and joined the jEtolian League against the Achaian League. The city of Elis was one of the most splendid in Greece ; but little now remains, even of ruins, to indicate its de- parted glories. See, also, Oltmpic Gambs. ELISII, The. See Lygians. ELIZABETH, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1741-1761 Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, and the Thirty Years War. See Germany: A. D. 1618-1620; 1620; 1621-1623; 1631-1632, and 1648 Elizabeth, Queen of England, A. D. 1558-1603 Elizabeth Farnese, Queen of Spain. See Italy: A. D. 171.5-1735; and Spalx: a. D. 1713-1725, and 1726-1731. ELIZABETH, N. J.— The first settlement of. See New Jersey: A. D. 1664-1067. ELK HORN, OR PEA RIDGE, Battle of. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1862 (Janc- AEY — March : IVIissouri — Arkansas). ELKWATER, OR CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1861 (August — December: West Virginia). ELLANDUM, Battle of.— Decisive victory of Ecgberht, the West Saxon king, over the Mercians, A. D. 823. ELLEBRI, The. See Ireland, Tribes of Early' Celtic inhabitants. ELLENBOROUGH, Lord, The Indian ad- ministration of. See India: A. D. 1836-1845. ELLICE ISLANDS. See Polynesi.4. ELLSWORTH, Colonel. See United States of Aju. : A. D. 1861 (jVIay : Virginia). ELMET. — A small kingdom of the Britons which was swallowed up in the English king- dom of Northumbria early in the seventh cen- tury. It answered, roughly speaking, to the present West-Riding of Yorkshire. . . . Leeds ' ' preserves the name of Loidis, by which Elmet seems also to have been known." — J. R. Green, The Making of Eng. , p. 254. ELMIRA, N. Y. (then Newtown).— Gen. Sullivan's Battle with the Senecas. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1779 (August — September). ELSASS. See Alsace. ELTEKEH, Battle of.— A victory won by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, over the Egyptians, before the disaster befel his army which is related in 2 Kings xix. 35. Sennacherib's own account of the battle has been found among the 805 ELTEKEH. ENGLAND, A. D. 449-547. Assyrian records. — A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from tile Ancient Monumentg, ch. 6. ELUSATES, The. See Aquitatne, Tribes OF ANCIENT. ELVIRA, Battle of (1319). SeeSPADj: A. D. 1273-1460. ELY, The Camp of Refuge at. See Eng- land: A. D. 1069-1071. ELYMAIS. See Elam. ELYMEIA. See Macedonia. ELYMIANS, The. See Sicily: Eaelt en- habitants. ELYSIAN FIELDS. See Canabt Islands. ELZEVIRS. See Printing: A. D. 1617- 1680. EMANCIPATION, Catholic. SeelKBLAHo: A. D. 1811-1839. EMANCIPATION, Compensated ; Pro- posal of President Lincoln. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1862 (March). EMANCIPATION, Prussian Edict of. See Germany: A. D. 1807-1808. EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS, President Lincoln's. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1862 (September), and 1863 (Janu- ary). EMANUEL, King of Portugal, A. D. 1495- 1521 Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, A. D. 1553-1.580. EMBARGO OF 1807, The American. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808. EMERICH, King of Hungary, A. D. 1196- 1204. EMERITA AUGUSTA. —A colony of Roman veterans settled in Spain, B. C. 27, by the emperor Augustus. It is identified with modern Merida, in Estremadura. — C. Merivale, Hist, of tlte Romans, ch. 34, note. EMESSA.— Capture by the Arabs (A. D. 636). See Mahometan Conquest: A. D. 632- 639. EMIGRES OF THE FRENCH REVO- LUTION. See France : A. D. 1789 (July- August), (August — October) ; 1789-1791 ; 1791 (July— September) : and 1791-1792. EMITES, The. See Jews : Early Hebrew. EMMAUS, Battle of. — Defeat of a Syrian army under Gorgias by Judas Maccaboeus, B. C. 166. — Josephus, Antiq. of the Jews, bk. 12, ch. 7. EMMENDINGEN, Battle of. SeeFRANCE-. A. D. 1796 (April — October). EMMET INSURRECTION, The. See Ireland : A. D. 1801-1803. EMPEROR.— A title derived from the Roman title Imperator. See Imperator. EMPORIA, The. See Carthage, The Dominion of. ENCOMIENDAS. See Slavery, Modern : OP the Indians ; also, Repartimientos. ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT, The. See Ireland: A. D. 1843-1848. ENCYCLICAL AND SYLLABUS OF 1864, The. See Papacy: A. D. 1864. ENCYCLOPAEDISTS, The. — " French literature had never been so brilliant as in the second half of the 18th century. BufEon, Diderot, D'Alembert, Rousseau. Duclos, Condillac, Hel- vetius, Holbach, Raynal, Condorcet, Mably, and many others adorned it, and the ' Encyclopaedia,' which was begun in 1751 under the direction of Diderot, became the focus of an intellectual in- fluence which has rarely been equalled. The name and idea were taken from a work published by Ephraim Chambers in Dublin, in 1728. A noble preliminary discourse was written by D'Alembert ; and all the best pens in France were enlisted in the enterprise, which was constantly encouraged and largely assisted by Voltaire. Twice it was suppressed by authority, but the interdict was again raised. Popular favour now ran with an irresistible force in favour of the philosophers, and the work was brought to its conclusion in 1771." — W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of Eng. in the 18th Century, ch. 20 (». 5). Also in : J. Morley, Diderot and the Encyclo- pedists, ch. 5 (ii 1).— E. J. Lowell, The Eve of tlie French ReDolution, ch. 16. ENDICOTT, John, and the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. See Massachusetts; A. D. 1623-1629, and after. ENDIDJAN, Battle of (1876). See Russia: A. D. 1859-1876. ENGADINE, The. See Switzerland: A. D. 1396-1499. ENGEN, Battle of (1800). See France: A. D. 1800-1801 (May— February). ENGERN, Duchy of. See Saxony: The Old Duciiy. ENGHIEN, Due d', The abduction and execution of. See France: 1804-1805. ENGLAND. Before the coming of the English. — The Celtic and Roman periods. See Britain. A. D. 449-547. — The three tribes of the Eng- lish conquest. — The naming of the country. — "It was by . . . three tribes [from Northwestern Germany], the Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes, that southern Britain was conquered and colo- nized in the fifth and sixth centuries, according to the most ancient testimony. ... Of the three, the Angli almost if not altogether pass away into the migration: the Jutes and the Saxons, although migrating in great numbers, had yet a great part to play in their own homes and in other regions besides Britain ; the former at a later period in the train and under the name of the Danes ; the latter in German history from the eighth century to the present day." — W. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of England, «. 1, ch. 8. — "Among the Teutonic settlers in Britain some tribes stand out conspicuously ; Angles, Saxons, and Jutes stand out conspicuously above all. The Jutes led the way ; from the Angles the land and the united nation took their name ; the Sax- ons gave us the name by which our Celtic neigh- bours have ever known us. But there is no reason to confine the area from which our fore- fathers came to the space which we should mark on the map as the land of the continental Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. So great a migration is always likely to be swollen by some who are quite alien to the leading tribe ; it is always cer- tain to be swollen by many who are of stocks akin to the leading tribe, but who do not actually belong to it. As we in Britain are those who 806 yjp- ^ CO a-: - 5" c a . « ^ -s q 3 = S a, . 2| K t *; p iSWdS^ i2 o "be C3 OS o .it c 5 K w ic S t; * ~ 3 S -i •° •" I - -^ o CO ^- K = .S .3 = § =■8 1 £? "C ^ a 3 a a 1 3 3 c s "to a "3 a .S 1 T3 - M g U s^-l i 1 u ^ f^ ■S a 1 "5) 1 1 i t^ .a i -^ o ^ S" a" A c Q. to T3 to l 5 1 a ■^ g g 3 ■a 1 S. ■a 1 t 1 b a •a 2 s c i s J 3 „ g a ■" I o ^ •s a o -g 3 ■= .g > -3 S > -a e 1 o ■c •" a » i I 2=1 2 = ; 1 I I 5 a E- e SI. «? '.', ■Si ct i ^ E b] ■o flj *£ •a a ii o 1 a s -o 3 3 u .a W) 1 a l_ "3 S — o £ 3 ^ 3 t>l o -6 ^ 1 i Ss Q • ■ e i 3 1 a s ■| 1 ■s 1 B o &• a .B o 'I a I ° ■3 ■? B = Ml w 1 3i '<; 3 a I a -S" If j3 ^ ♦^ O •3 i " I * i "S a •a g ■a E f I o 5 3| .2 S .3 >. I I I S I- w S 51 ? a •s s B ' C)S£ II M 2 g ?■ £ .3 8^ CD « ■a a si i 2 J3 a to T3 s I 2 'v S a s" _g I C3 o & fc to £= § Z 13 d g. 3 1 1 •3 S 3 1 R 1- 6 ^ £ z M tJ fc s « 1 c f- fe l_ S t o a o _a o ?f c > E M 3 1 1 1 1 3 o ■3 3 II 5 ' a u ■a 8 .a £ ' si-- ■s „ >•■ ■ 3 = S S « -5 I I w -g £ .a J^ •a ^ a. a » .3 I 11 ^ c: -d I I I to S S a S E li il r g I .3 c " to ^ a to "^ 1 1 c ^ S '^ -o in - «* 1 = P Eo to P i: p c I i '3 o I* C u K £ CM, 3 ? - T ; ? e It] n^V ! a 6 -r to ce = => t. M - o = - E s e i p >" i I 1 = i a g- 2 S I- ^ i S I ^ I t ^ § i* 6 " 1^2-1 II C ENGLAND, A. D. 449-547. ENGLAND, A. D. 449-473. stayed beliind at the time of the second great migration of our people [to America], so 1 ven- ture to look on all our Low-Dutch kinsfolk on the continent of Europe as those who stayed behind at the time of the first great migration of our people. Our special hearth and cradle is doubtless to be found in the immediate march- land of Germany and Denmark, but the great common home of our people is to be looked on as stretching along the whole of that long coast where various dialects of the Low-Dutch tongue are spoken. If Angles and Saxons came, we know that Frisians came also, and with Frisians as an element among us, it is hardly too bold to claim the whole Netherlands as in the widest sense Old England, as the land of one part of the kinsfolk who stayed behind. Through that whole region, from the special Anglian corner far into what is now northern France, the true tongue of the people, sometimes overshadowed by other tongues, is some dialect or other of that branch of the great Teutonic family which is essentially the same as our own speech. From Flanders to Sleswick the natural tongue is one which differs from English only as tlie historical events of fourteen hundred years of separation have inevitably made the two tongues — two dia- lects, I should rather say, of the same tongue — to differ. From these lands we came as a people. That was our first historical migration. Our remote forefathers must have made endless earlier migrations as parts of the great Aryan body, as parts of the smaller Teutonic body. But our voyage from the Low-Dutch mainland to the isle of Britain was our first migration as a people. . . . Among the Teutonic tribes which settled in Britain, two, the Angles and the Saxons, stood out foremost. These two be- tween them occupied by far the greater part of the land that was occupied at all. Each of these two gave its name to the united nation, but each gave it on different lips. The Saxons were the earlier invaders ; they had more to do with the Celtic remnant which abode in the land. On the lips then of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain, the whole of the Teutonic inhabitants of Britain were known from the beginning, and are known still, as Saxons. But, as the various Teutonic settlements drew together, as they began to have common national feelings and to feel the need of a common national name, the name which they chose was not the same as that by which their Celtic neighbours called them. They did not . call themselves Saxons and their land Saxony ; they called themselves English and their land England. I used the word Saxony in all serious- ness ; it is a real name for the Teutonic part of Britain, and it is an older name than the name England. But it is a name used only from the outside by Celtic neighbours and enemies; it was not used from the inside by the Teutonic people themselves. In their mouths, as soon as they took to themselves a common name, that name was English ; as soon as they gave their land a common name, that name was England. . . . And this is the more remarkable, because the age when English was fullj' established as the name of the people, and England as the name of the land, was an age of Saxon supremacy, an age when a Saxon state held the headship of England and of Britain, when Saxon kings grew step by step to be kings of the English and lords of the whole British island. In common use then, the men of the tenth and eleventh centuries knew themselves by no name but English." — E. A. Freeman, The Eiiylish People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences, pp. 30- 31, and 45-47). — See Angles and Jutes, and Saxons. A. D. 449-473. — The Beginning of English history. — The conquest of Kent by the Jutes. — "In the year 449 or 450 a band of warriors was drawn to the shores of Britain by the usual pledges of land and pay. The warriors were Jutes, men of a tribe which has left its name to Jutland, at the extremity of the peninsula that projects from the shores of North-Germany, but who were probably akin to the race that was fringing the opposite coast of Scandinavia and settling in the Danish Isles. In three ' keels ' — so ran tlie legend of their conquest — and with their Ealdormen, Hengest and Horsa, at their head, these Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet in the Isle of Thanet. "With the landing of Hengest and his war-band English history begins. ... In the first years that followed after their landing. Jute and Briton fought side by side; and the Picts are said to have been scattered to the winds in a great battle on the eastern coast of Britain. But danger from the Pict was hardly over when danger came from the Jutes themselves. Their numbers probably grew fast as the news of their settlement in Thanet spread among their fellow pirates who wei'e haunting the charmel ; and with the increase of their number must have grown the difficulty of supplying them with rations and pay. The dispute which rose over these ques- tions was at last closed by Hengest's men with a threat of war." The threat was soon executed; the forces of the Jutes were successfully trans- ferred from their island camp to the main shore, and the town of Durovernum (occupying the site of modern Canterbury) was the first to experience their rage. "The town was left in blackened and solitary ruin as the invaders pushed along the road to London. No obstacle seems to have checked their march from the Stour to the Med- way." At Aylesford (A. D. 455), the lowest ford crossing the Medway, " the British leaders must have taken post for the defence of AVest Kent; but the Chronicle of the conquering people tells . . . only that Horsa fell in the moment of vic- tory; and the flint-heap of Horsted which has long preserved his name . . . was held in after- time to mark his grave. . . . The victory of Aylesford was followed by a political change among the assailants, whose loose organization around ealdormen was exchanged for a stricter union. Aylesford, we are told, was no sooner won than ' Hengest took to the kingdom, and ^Ue, his son.'. . . The two kings pushed for- ward in 457 from the Medway to the conquest of AVest Kent." Another battle at the passage of the Cray was another victory for the invaders, and, " as the Chronicle of their conquerors tolls us, the Britons ' forsook Kent-land and fled with much fear to London.'. . , If we trust British tradition, the battle at Crayford was followed by a political revolution in Britain itself. ... It would seem . . . that the Romauized Britons rose in revolt under Aurelius Ambrosianus, a descend- ant of the last Roman general who claimed the purple as an Emperor in Britain. . . . The revo- lution revived for a while the energy of the prov- ince." The Jutes were driven back into the Isle of Thanet, and held there, apparently, for some 80 ENGLAND, A. D. 449-473. The Saxons. ENGLAND, A. D. 547-633. years, with the help of the strong fortresses of Richborough and Reculver, guarding the two mouths of the inlet which then parted Thanet from the mainland. " lu 465 however the petty conflicts which had gone on along the shores of the Wantsum made way for a decisive struggle. . . . The overthrow of the Britons at Wipped's- fleet was so terrible that all hope of preserving the bulk of Kent seems from this moment to have been abandoned; and ... no further struggle disturbed the Jutes in its conquest and settlement. It was only along its southern shore that the Britons now held their ground. ... A final vic- tory of the Jutes in 473 may mark the moment when they reached the rich pastures which the Roman engineers had reclaimed from Romney Marsh. . . . With this advance to the mouth of the Weald the work of Hengest's men came to an end ; nor did the Jutes from this time play any important part in the attack on the island, for their after-gains were limited to the Isle of Wiglit and a few districts on the Southampton Water." — J. R. Green, The Making of England, cli. 1. Also in: J. M. Lappenberg, Eist. of Eng. under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, r. 1. pj). 67-101. A. D. 477-527. — The conquests of the Sax- ons. — The founding of the kingdoms of Sus- sex, .Wessex and Essex. — "Whilst the Jutes were conquering Kent, their kindred took part in the war. Ship after ship sailed from the North Sea, filled with eager warriors. The Saxons now arrived — Ella and his three sons landed in the ancient territory of the Regni (A. D. 477-491). The Britons were defeated with great slaughter, and driven into the forest of Andreade, whose extent is faintly indicated by the wastes and commons of the Weald. A general confederacy of the Kings and ' Tyrants ' of the Britons was formed against the invaders, but fresh reinforce- ments arrived from Germany ; the city of Andre- ades-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its inhabit- ants were slain and the buildings razed to the ground, so that its site is now entirely unknown. From this period the kingdom of the South Sax- ons was established in the person of Ella; and though ruling only over the narrow boundary of modem Sussex, he was accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas, or Emperors of the Isle of Britain. Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tid- ings received from Ella, another band of Saxons, commanded by Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the neighbouring shore.Jn the modern Hamp- shire (A. D. 494). At first they made but little progress. They were opposed by the Britons; but Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers cele- brate for his nobility, and the British Bards extol for his beauty and valour, was slain (A. D. 501). The death of the Prince of the ' Woodlands of Dyfnaint,' or Damnonia, may have been avenged, but the power of the Saxons overwhelmed all opposition ; and Cerdic, associating his son Cyn- ric In the dignity, became the King of the terri- tory wliich he gained. Under Cynric and his son Ceaulin, the Saxons slowly, yet steadily, gained ground. The utmost extent of their do- minions towards the North cannot be ascertained ; but they had conquered the town of Bedford: and it was probably in consequence of their geo- graphical position (A. D. 571) with respect to the countries of the Middle and East Saxons, that the name of the West Saxons was given to this colony. The tract north of the Thames was soon lost; but on the south of that river and of the Severn, the successors of Cerdic, Kings of Wes- sex, continued to extend their dominions. The Hampshire Avon, which retains its old Celtic name, signifying ' the Water, ' seems at first to have been their boundary. Beyond this river, the British princes of Damnonia retained their power; and it was long before the country as far as the Exe became a Saxon March-land, or bor- der. About the time that the Saxons under Cer- dic and Cynric were successfully warring against the Britons, another colony was seen to establish itself in the territory or kingdom which, from its geographical position, obtained the name of East Saxon}' ; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons, now Jliddlesex, formed a part. London, as you well know, is locally included in Middle Saxony ; and the Kings of Essex, and the other sovereigns who afterwards acquired the country, certainly possessed many extensive rights of sover- eignty in the city. Yet, I doubt much whether London was ever incorporated in any Anglo- Saxon kingdom ; and I think we must view it as a weak, tributary, vassal state, not very well able to resist the usurpations of the supreme Lord or Suzerain, ^Escwin, or Ercenwine, who was the first King of the East Saxons (A. D. 527). His son Sleda was married to Ricola, daughter to Ethelbert of Kent, who afterwards appears as the superior, or sovereign of the country; and though Sleda was King, yet Ethelbert joined in all important acts of government. This was the fate of Essex — it is styled a kingdom, but it never enjoyed any political independence, being always subject to the adjoining kings." — F. Pal- grave, Hist, of the Anglo Saxons, cli. 3. — "The descents of [the West Saxons], Cerdic and Cyn- ric, in 495 at the mouth of the Itchen, and a fresh descent on Portchester in 501, can have been little more than plunder raids; and though in 508 a far more serious conflict ended in the fall of 5,000 Britons and their chief, it was not till 514 that the tribe whose older name seems to have been that of the Gewissas, but who were to he more widely known as the West Saxons, actu- ally landed with a view to definite conquest." — J. R. Green, The Making of England, ch. 3. — ' ' Tlie greatness of Sussex did not last beyond the days of its founder .lElle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex, or its offshoot, Mid- dlesex, could claim as containing the great city of London was of no long duration. We soon find London fluctuating between the condition of an independent commonwealth, and that of a dependency of the Jlercian Kings. Verj' differ- ent was the destiny of the third Saxon Kingdom. Wessex has grown into England, England into Great Britain, Great Britain into the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom into the British Empire. Every prince who has ruled England before and since the eleventh century [the inter- val of the Danish kings, Harold, son of Godwine, and William the Conqueror, who were not of the West Saxon house] has had the blood of Cerdic the West Saxon in his veins. At the close of the sixth century Wessex had risen to high import- ance among the English Kingdoms, tliough the days of its permanent supremacy were still far distant." — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 3, sect 1. A. D. 547-633. — The conquests of the An- gles. — The founding of their kingdoms. — " Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of the East Angles, in which a 808 ENGLAND, A. D. 547-633. The Angles. ENGLAND, A. D. 597-685. northern and a southern people (Northfolc and Suthfolc) were distinguished. It is probable that, even during the last period of the Roman sway, Germans were settled in this part of Britain; a supposition that gains probability from several old Saxon sagas, which have refer- ence to East Anglia at a period anterior to the coming of Hengest and Horsa. The land of the Gyrwas, containing 1,200 hides . . . comprised the neighbouring marsh districts of Ely and Huntingdonshire, almost as far as Lincoln. Of the East Angles Wehwa, or Wewa, or more com- monly his son Ufla, or Wuffia, from whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings, is recorded as tlie first king. The neighbouring states of Jlercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of Lin- colnshire. With these were united the Middle Angles. This kingdom, divided by the Trent into a northern and a southern portion, gradually extended itself to the borders of Wales. Among the states which it comprised was the little king- dom of the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester, or the counties of Glouces- ter, Worcester, and a part of Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesa;tas. . . . The country to the north of the Humber had suffered the most severely from the inroads of the Picts and Scots. It became at an early period separated into two British states, the names of which were retained for some centuries, viz, : Deifyr (Deora rice), after- wards Latinized into Deira, extending from the Humber to the Tyne, and Berneich (Beorna rice), afterwards Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Clyde. Here also the settlements of the German races appear anterior to the date given in the common accounts of the first Anglian kings of those territories, in the middle of the sixth cen- tury." — J. M. Lappenberg, Hist, of Eng. iinder the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe), ii. 1, pp. 113-117. — The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumber- land, Mercia and East Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish King- doms, so you see very well why the land was called 'England' and not 'Saxony.'. . . 'Sax- onia ' does occur now and then, and it was really an older name than 'Anglia,' but it soon went quite out of use. . . . But some say that there were either Jutes or Saxons in the North of Eng- land as soon or sooner than there were in the south. If so, there is another reason why the Scotch Celts as well as the Welsh, call us Saxons. It is not unlikely that there may have been some small Saxon or Jutish settlements there very early, but the great Kingdom of Northumber- land was certainly founded by Ida the Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teu- tonic settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not say of him, as it does of Hen- gest, Cissa and Cerdic, that he came into the land by the sea, but only that he began the Kingdom. . . . You must fully understand that in the old times Northumberland meant the whole land north of the Humber, reaching as far as the Firth of Forth. It thus takes in part of what is now Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, that is Eadwinesburh, the town of the great Northumbrian King Eadwine, or Ed- win [Edwin of Deira, A. D. 617-633]. . . . You must not forget that Lothian and all that part of Scotland was part of Northumberland, and that the people there are really English, and still speak a tongue which has changed less from the Old-English than the tongue of any other part of England. And the real Scots, the Gael in the Highlands, call the Lowland Scots 'Saxons,' just as much as they do the people of England itself. This Northumbrian Kingdom was one of the greatest Kingdoms in England, but it was often divided into two, Beornicia [or Bernicia] and Deira, the latter of which answered pretty nearly to Yorkshire. The chief city was the old Roman town of Eboracum, which in Old-English is Eoforwic, and which we cut short into York. York was for a long time the greatest town in the North of England. There are now many others much larger, but York is still the second city in England in rank, and it gives its chief magistrate the title of Lord-Mayor, as London does, while in other cities and towns the chief magistrate is merely the Mayor, without any Lord. . . . The great Anglian Kingdom of the Mercians, that is the Marchmen, the people on the march or frontier, seems to have been the youngest of all, and to have grown up gradually by joining together several smaller states, includ- ing all the land which the West Saxons had held north of the Thames. Such little tribes or states were the Lindesfaras and the Gainas in Lincoln- shire, the Magessetas in Herefordshire, the Hwic- cas in Gloucester, Worcester, and part of War- wick, and several others. . . . When Mercia was fully joined under one King, it made one of the greatest states in England, and some of the Mercian Kings were very powerful princes. It was chiefly an Anglian Kingdom, and the Kings were of an Anglian stock, but among the Hwic- cas and in some of the other shires in southern and western Mercia, most of the people must really have been Saxons." — E. A. Freeman, Old English Hist, for Children, ch. 5. A. D. 560.— Ethelbert becomes king of Kent. A. D. 593. — Ethelfrith becomes king of Northumbria. A. D. 597-685. — The conversion of the Eng- lish. — "It happened that certain Saxon chil- dren were to be sold for slaves at the market- place at Rome ; when Divine Providence, the great clock-keeper of time, ordering not only hours, but even instants (Luke ii. 38), to his own honour, so disposed it, that Gregory, afterwards first bishop of Rome of that name, was present to behold them. It grieved the good man to see the disproportion betwixt the faces and fortunes, the complexions and conditions, of these children, condemned to a servile estate, though carrying liberal looks, so legible was ingenuity in their faces. It added more to his sorrow, when he conceived that those youths were twice vassals, bought by their masters, and ' sold under sin ' (Rom. vii. 14), servants in their bodies, and slaves in their souls to Satan ; which occasioned the good man to enter into further inquiry with the merchants (which set them to sale) what they were and whence they came, according to this ensuing dialogue: — Gregory. — ' Whence come these captives ? ' Merchants. — ' From the isle of Britain.' Gregory. — ' Are those islanders Chris- tians?' Merchants. — 'O no, tliey are Pagans.' Gregory.— 'It is sad that the author of darkness should possess men with so bright faces. But what is the name of their particular nation?' Merchants. — ' They are called Angli.' Gregory. 809 ENGLAND, A. D. 597-685. Christianity. ' ENGLAND, 6TH CENTURY. — 'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it becometh such to be coheirs witli tlie angels in heaven. In what province of England did they live?' Merchants. — 'In Deira.' Gregory. — ' They are to be freed de Dei ira, " from the anger of God." How call ye the king of that country ? ' Merchants. — ' Ella. ' Gregory. — ' Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his king- dom to the praise of that God who created all things. ' Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the i sound of every word to the time of spiritual goodness. Nor can his words be justly censured for levity, if we consider how, in that age. the elegance of poetry consisted in rhythm, and the eloquence of prose in allusions. And which was the main, where liis pleasant conceits did end, there his pious endeavours began; which did not terminate in a verbal jest, but produce real effects, which ensued hereupon." — Thomas Ful- ler, The Church History of Britain, bk. 2, sect. 1. — In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and six years later, still re- taining the interest awakened in him by the captive English youth, he dispatched a band of missionary monks to Britain, with their prior, Augustine, at their head. Once they turned back, affrighted by what they heard of the ferocity of the new heathen possessors of the once-Christian island of Britain ; but Gregory laid his commands upon them again, and in the spring of 597 they crossed the channel from Gaul, landing at Ebbsfleet, in tlie Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first land- ing, a century and a half before. They found Ethelbert of Kent, the most powerful of the English kings at that time, already prepared to receive them with tolerance. If not with favor, through the influence of a Christian wife — queen Bertha, of the royal family of the Franks. The conversion and baptism of the Kentish king and court, and the acceptance of the new faith by great numbers of the people followed quickly. In November of the same year, 597, Augustine returned to Gaul to receive his consecration as "Archbishop of the English," establishing the See of Canterburj', with the primacy which has remained in it to the present day. The East Saxons were the next to bow to the cross and in 604 a bishop, Mellitus, was sent to London. This ended Augustine's work — and Gregory's — for both died that year. Then followed an in- terval of little progress in the work of the mis- sion, and, afterwards, a reaction towards idolatry which threatened to destroy it altogether. But just at this time of discouragement in the south, a great triumph of Christianity was brought about in Northumberland, and due, there, as in Kent, to the influence of a Christian queen. Edwin, the king, with many of his nobles and his people, were baptised on Easter Eve, A. D. 627, and a new center of missionary work was established at York. There, too, an appalling reverse occurred, when Northumberland was overrun, in 633, by Penda, the heathen king of Mercia ; but the kingdom rallied, and the Chris- tian Church was reestablished, not wholly, as be- fore, under the patronage and rule of Rome, but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which did not acknowledge the suprem- acy of Rome. In the end, however, the Roman forms of Christianity prevailed, throughout Britain, as elsewhere in western Europe. Before the end of the 7th century the religion of the Cross was established firmly in all parts of the island, the South Saxons being the latest to re- ceive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and Frisian brethren on the con- tinent. — G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West : The English. Also in: The Venerable Bede, Ecclesiastical History. — H. Soames, The Anglo Saxon Church. — R. C. Jenkins, Canterbury, ch. 2. End of the 6th Century. — The extent, the limits and the character of the Teutonic con- quest. — " Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the English Chan- nel to the Firth of Forth. The northern part of the island was still held by Picts and Scots, Celtic tribes, whose exact ethnical relation to each other hardly concerns us. And the whole west side of the island, including not only modern Wales, but the great Kingdom of Strathclyde, stretching from Dumbarton to Chester, and the great peninsula containing Cornwall, Devon and part of Somerset, was still in the hands of inde- pendent Britons. The struggle had been a long and severe one, and the natives often retained possession of a defensible district long after the surrounding country had been occupied by the invaders. It is therefore probable that, at the end of the 6tli century and even later, there may have been within tlie English frontier inaccessible points where detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious independence. It is proba- ble also that, within the same frontier, there stiU were Roman towns, tributary to the conquerors rather than occupied by them. But by the end of the 6th century even these exceptions must have been few. The work of the Conquest, as a whole, was accomplished. The Teutonic settlers had occupied by far the greater part of the terri- tory which they ever were, in the strictest sense, to occupy. The complete supremacy of the island was yet to be won; but that was to be won, when it was won, by quite another process. The English Conquest of Britain differed in sev- eral important respects from every other settle- ment of a Teutonic people within the limits of the Roman Empire. . . . Though the literal ex- tirpation of a nation is an impossibilitj', there is every reason to believe that the Celtic inhabitants of those parts of Britain which had become English at the 6th century had been as nearly extirpated as a nation can be. The women would doubtless be largely spared, but as far as the male sex is concerned, we may feel sure that death, emigration or personal slavery were the only alternatives which the vanquished found at the hands of our fathers. The nature of the small Celtic element in our language would of itself prove the fact. Nearl_y every Welsh word which has found its way into English expresses some small domestic matter, such as women and slaves would be concerned with." — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Korman Conquest of Eng., ch. 3, sect. 1. — "A glance at the map shows that the mass of the local nomenclature of England begins with the Teutonic conquest, while the mass of the local nomenclature of France is older than the Teutonic conquest. And, if we turn from the names on the map to the living speech of men, there is the most obvious, but the most im- portant, of all facts, the fact that Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French. 810 ENGLAND, 6TH CENTURY. The Conquest. ENGLAND. A. D. 655. That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through tlie Teutonic conquest, while in Britain it perished in the Teutonic conquest, if it had not passed away before. And behind this is the fact, very much less obvious, a good deal less important, but still very important, that in Gaul tongues older than Latin live on only in corners as mere survivals, while in Britain, while Latin has utterly vanished, a tongue older than Latin still lives on as the common speech of an appre- ciable part of the land. .Here then is the final result open to our own eyes. And it is a final result which could not have come to pass unless the Teutonic conquest of Britain had been some- thing of an utterly different character from the Teutonic conquest of Gaul — unless the amount of change, of destruction, of havoc of every kind, above all, of slaugliter and driving out of the ex- isting inhabitants, had been far greater in Britain than it was in Gaul. If the Angles and Saxons in Britain had been only as the Goths in Spain, or even as the Franks in Gaul, it is inconceivable that the final results should have been so utterly different in the two cases. There is the plain fact: Gaul remained a Latin-speaking land; Eng- land became a Teutonic-speaking land. The ob- vious inference is that, while in Gaul the Teu- tonic conquest led to no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Pranks simply settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves were gradually merged ; in Britain the Angles and Sa.\ons slew or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and settled it again as a new people." — E. A. Free- man, The Englinh People in its Three Homes {Lectures to American Audiences), pp. 114-115. — "Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest of Britain was a sheer dispos- session of the conquered people ; and, so far as the English sword in these earlier daj'S reached, Britain became England, a land, that is, not of Britons, but of Englishmen. There is no need to believe that the clearing of the land meant the general slaughter of the men who held it, or to account for such a slaughter by supposed differ- ences between the temper of the English and those of other conquerors. . . . The displace- ment of the conquered people was only made possible by their own stubborn resistance, and by the slow progress of the conquerors in the teeth of it. Slaughter no doubt there was on the battle-field or in towns like Anderida, whose long defence woke wrath in their besiegers. But for the most part the Britons cannot have been slaughtered; they were simply defeated and drew back." — J. R. Green, 17te Making of Eng- land, eh. 4. — The view strongly stated above, as to the completeness of the erasure of Romano- British society and influence from the whole of England except its southwestern and north- western counties, by the English conquest, is combated as strongly by another less prominent school of recent historians, represented, for ex- ample, by j\Ir. Henry C. Coote (The, Romans of Britain) and by Mr. Charles H. Pearson, who says: "We know that fugitives from Britain settled largely during the 5th century in Armor- ica and in Ireland ; and we may perhaps accept the legend of St. Ursula as proof that the flight, in some instances, was directed to the more civil- ized parts of the continent. But even the pious story of the 11,000 virgins is sober and credible by the side of that history which assumes that some million men and women were slaughtered or made homeless by a few ship-loads of con- querors. " — C. H. Pearson, Hist, of Eng. during the Early and Middle Ages, v. 1, ch. 6. — The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one. 7th Century. — The so-called " Heptarchy." — " The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regu- lar system of seven Kingdoms, united under the regular supremacy of a single over-lord, is a dream which has passed away before the light of historic criticism. Tlie English Kingdoms in Britain were ever fluctuating, alike in their number and in their relations to one another. The number of perfectly independent states was sometimes greater and sometimes less than the mystical seven, and, till the beginning of the ninth century, the whole nation did not admit the regular supremacy of any fixed and per- manent over-lord. Yet it is no less certain that, among the mass of smaller and more obscure principalities, seven Kingdoms do stand out in a marked way, seven Kingdoms of which it is possible to recover something like a continuous history, seven Kingdoms which alone supplied candidates for the dominion of the whole island. '* These seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex, Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, Northumberland and Mer- cia. — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 3.— "After the territorial boundaries had become more settled, there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. . . . Histo- rians have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy, disregarding the early disappear- ance of Sussex, and the existence of still smaller kingdoms. But this grouping was neither based upon equality, nor destined to last for any length of time. It was the common interest of these smaller states to withstand -the sudden and often dangerous invasions of their western and northern neighbours; and, accordingly, which- ever king was capable of successfully combating the common foe, acquired for the time a certain superior rank, which some historians denote by the title of Bretwalda. By this name can only be understood an actual and recognized tempo- rary superiority ; first ascribed to JElla of Sussex, and later passing to Northumbria, until Wessex finally attains a real and lasting supremacy. It was geographical position which determined these relations of superiority. The small kingdoms in the west were shielded by the greater ones of Northumberland, Mercia and Wessex, as though by crescent-shaped forelands — which in their struggles with the Welsh kingdoms, with Strath- clyde and Cumbria, with Picts and Scots, were continually in a state of martial activity. And so the smaller western kingdoms followed the three warlike ones ; and round these Anglo-Saxon history revolves for two whole centuries, until in Wessex we find a combination of most of the conditions which are necessary to the existence of a great State." — R. Gneist, Hist, of the Eng. Con- stitution, ch. 3. A. D. 617. — Edwin becomes king of North- umbria. A. D. 634. — 0sv7ald becomes king of North- umbria. A. D. 655. — Oswi becomes king of Northum- bria. 811 ENGLAND, A. D. 670. The Danes. ENGLAND, A. D. 855-880. A. D. 670. — Egfrith becomes king of North- umbria. A. D. 688.— Ini becomes king of the West Saxons. A. D. 716. — Ethelbald becomes king of Mercia. A. D. 758. — Offa becomes king of Mercia. A. D. 794. — Cenwulf becomes king of Mercia. A. D. 800. — Accession of the West Saxon king Ecgberht. A. D. 800-836. — The supremacy of Wessex. — The first king of all the English. — "And now I have come to the reigu of Ecgberht, the great Bretwalda. He was an ^theling of the blood of Cerdic, and he is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said to have been an Uuder-king of Kent. For the old line of the Kings of Kent had come to an end and Kent was now sometimes under "Wessex and sometimes under Mercia. . . . Wlien Beorhtric died in 800, he [Ecgbei'ht] was chosen King of the West- Saxons. He reigned until 836, and in that time he brought all the English Kingdoms, and the greater part of Britain, more or less under his power. The southern part of the island, all Kent, Sussex, and Essex, he joined on to his own Kingdom, and set his sons or other .(Ethelings to reign over them as his Under-kings. But Nor- thumberland, Mercia, and East-Auglia were not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings submitted to Ecgberht and acknowl- edged him as their over-lord, but they went on reigning in their own Kingdoms, and assembling their own Wise Men, just as they did before. They became what in after times was called his 'vassals,' what in English was called being his ' men. ' . . . Besides the English Kings, Ecgberht bi'ought the Welsh, both in Wales and in Corn- wall, more completely under his power. ... So King Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and from the English Chan- nel to the Firth of Forth. So it is not wonderful if, in his charters, he not only called himself King of the West-Saxons or King of the West-Saxons and Kentishman, but sometimes ' Rex Anglorum,' or 'King of the English.' But amidst all this glory there were signs of great evils at hand. The Danes came several times." — E. A. Free- man, Old English Hist, for Children, ch. 7. A. D. 836.— Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelwulf. A. D. 855-880.— Conquests and settlements of the Danes. — The heroic struggle of Alfred the Great. — The " Peace of Wedmore " and the " Danelaw." — King Alfred's character and reign. — " The Danish invasions of England . . . fall naturally into three periods, each of which finds its parallel in the course of the English Con- quest of Britain. . . . We first find a period in which the object of the invaders seems to be simple plunder. They land, they harry the coun- try, they fight, if need be, to secure their booty, but whether defeated or victorious, they equally return to their ships, and sail away with what they have gathered. This period mcludes the time from the first recorded invasion [A. D. 787] till the latter half of the ninth century. Next conies a time in which the object of the North- men is clearly no longer mere plunder, but settle- ment. ... in the reign of Ethelwulf the son of Ecgberht it is recorded that the heathen men wintered for the first time in the Isle of Sheppey [A. D. 855]. This marks the transition from the first to the second period of their invasions. . . • It was not however till about eleven years from this time that the settlement actually began. Meanwhile the sceptre of the West-Saxons passed from one hand to another. . . . Four sons of Ethelwulf reigned in succession, and the reigns of the first three among them [Ethelbald, A. D. 858, Ethelberiit, 860, Ethelred, 866] make up to- gether only thirteen years. In the reign of the third of these princes, Ethelred I., the second period of the invasions fairly begins. Five years were spent by the Northmen in ravaging and con- quering the tributary Kingdoms. Northumber- land, still disputed between rival Kings, fell an easy prey [867-869], and one or two puppet princes did not scruple to receive a tributary crown at the hands of the heathen invaders. They next entered IVIercia [868], they seized Notting- ham, and the West-Saxon King hastening to the relief of his vassals, was unable to dislodge them from that stronghold. East Anglia was completely conquered [866-870] and its King Eadmund died a martyr. At last the full storm of invasion burst upon Wessex itself [871]. King .iEthelred, the first of a long line of West-Saxon hero-Kings, supported by his greater brother .iElfred [Alfred the Great] met the invaders in battle after battle with varied success. He died and .iElfred suc- ceeded, in the thick of the struggle. In this year [871], the last of Ethelred and the first of iElfred, nine pitched battles, besides smaller en- gagements, were fought with the heathens on West-Saxon ground. At last peace was made ; the Northmen retreated to London, within the Jlercian frontier; Wessex was for the moment delivered, but the supremacy won by Ecgberht was lost. For a few years Wesse.x was subjected to nothing more than temporary incursions, but Northumberland and part of Mercia were system- atically occupied by the Northmen, and the land was divided among them. ... At last the North- men, now settled in a large jaart of the island, made a second attempt to add Wessex itself to their possessions [878]. For a moment the land seemed conquered ; jElfrcd himself lay hid in the marshes of Somersetshire ; men might well deem that the Empire of Ecgberht and the Kingdom of Cerdic Itself, had vanished for ever. But the strong heart of the most renowned of Englishmen, the saint, the scholar, the hero, and the lawgiver, carried his people safely through this most terri- ble of dangers. Within the same year the Dragon of Wessex was again victorious [at the battle of Ethandun, or Edington], and the Northmen were driven to conclude a peace which Englishmen, fifty years sooner, would have deemed the lowest depth of degradation, but which might now bo fairly looked upon as honourable and even as triumphant. By the terms of the Peace of Wed- more the Northmen were to evacuate Wessex and the part of Mercia south-west of Watling-Street; they, or at least their chiefs, were to submit to baptism, and they were to receive the whole land beyond Watling-Street as vassals of the West- Saxon King. . . . The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea to its source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till it meets Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the Welsh border. See 'jElfred and Guthrum's Peace,' Thorpe's 'Laws and Institutes,' i. 153. This frontier gives London to the English ; but it seems that .Alfred did not obtain full possession of London till 886." The territory thus conceded 812 ENGLAND, A. D. 855-880. Alfred tli« Great. ENGLAND, A. D. 855-880. to the Danes, -wliicli included all northeastern England from the Thames to the Tyne, was thenceforth known by the name of the Danelagh or Danelaw, signifying the country subject to the law of the Danes. The Peace of Wedmore ended the second period of the Danish invasions. The third period, which was not opened until a full century later, embraced tlie actual conquest of the whole of England by a Danish king and its temporary annexation to the dominions of the Danish crown.- — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Nor- man Conq. of Eng., ch. 2, with foot-note. — "Now that peace was restored, and the Danes driven out of his domains, it remained to be seen whether Alfred was as good a ruler as he was a soldier. . . . What did he see ? The towns, even London itself, pillaged, ruined, or burnt down; the mon- asteries destroyed ; the people wild and lawless ; Ignorance, rougluiess, insecurity everywhere. It is almost incredible with what a brave heart he set himself to repair all this ; how his great and noble aims were still before him ; how hard he strove, and how much he achieved. First of all he seems to have sought for helpers. Like most clever men, he was good at reading characters. He soon saw who would be true, brave, wise friends, and he collected these around him. Some of them he fetched from over the sea, from France and Germany ; our friend Asser from Wales, or, as he calls his country, 'Western Britain,' while England, he calls ' Saxony.' He says he first saw Alfred ' in a royal vill, which is called Dene ' in Sussex. ' He received me with kindness, and asked me eagerly to devote myself to his service, and become his friend ; to leave everything which I possessed on the left or western ban k of the Severn, and promised that he would give more than an equivalent for it in his own dominions. I replied that I could not rashly and incautiously promise such things ; for it seemed to be unjust that I should leave those sacred places in which I had been bred, educated, crowned, and ordained for the sake of any earthly honour and power, unless upon compulsion. Upon this he said, "If you cannot accede to this, at least let me have your service in part; spend six months of the year with me here, and the other six months in Britain. " ' And to this after a time Asser con- sented. What were the principal things he turned his mind to after providing for the defence of his kingdom, and collecting his friends and counsel- lors about him ? Law — j ustice — religion — ■ edu- cation. He collected and studied the old laws of his nation ; what he thought good he kept, what he disapproved he left out. He added others, especially the ten commandments and some other parts of the law of Moses. Then he laid them all before his Witan, or wise men, and with their approval published them. . . . The state of jus- tice in England was dreadful at this time. . . . Alfred's way of curing this was by inquiring into all cases, as far as he possibly could, himself; and Asser says he did this ' especially for the sake of the poor, to whose interest, day and night, he ever was wonderfully attentive ; for in the whole king- dom the poor, besides him, had few or no pro- tectors.' . . . When he found that the judges had made mistakes through ignorance, he rebuked them, and told them they must either grow wiser or give up their posts ; and soon the old earls and other judges, who had been unlearned from their cradles, began to study diligently. . . . For re- viving and spreading religion among his people he used the best means that he knew of ; that is, he founded new monasteries and restored old ones, and did his utmost to get good bishops and clergymen. For his own part, he strove to prac- tise in all ways what he taught to others. , . . Education was in a still worse condition than everything else. . . . All the schools had been broken up. Alfred says that when he began to reign there were very few clergymen south of the Humber who could even understand the Prayer- book. (That was still in Latin, as the Roman missionaries had brouglit it.) And south of the Tliames he could not remember one. His first care was to get better-educated clergy and bish- ops. And next to get the laymen taught also. . . . He founded monasteries and schools, and restored the old ones which had been ruined. He iiad a school in his court for his own children and the children of his nobles. But at the very out- set a most serious difficulty confronted Alfred. Where was he to get books ? At this time, as far as we can judge, there can only have been one, or at most two books in the English language — the long poem of CaBdmon about the creation of the world, &c., and the poem of Beowulf about warriors and fiery dragons. There were many English ballads and songs, but whether these were written down I do not know. There was no book of history, not even English history ; no book of geography, no religious books, no philosophy. Bede, who had written so many books, had writ- ten them all in Latin. ... So when they had a time of ' stillness ' the king and his learned friends set to work and translated books into English; and Alfred, who was as modest and candid as he was wise, put into the preface of one of his trans- lations tliat he hoped, if any one knew Latin bet- ter than he did, that he would not blame him, for he could but do according to his ability. . . . Beside all this, he had a great many other occu- pations. Asser, who often lived with him for months at a time, gives us an account of his busy life. Notwithstanding his infirmities and other hindrances, ' he continued to carry on the govern- ment, and to exercise hunting in all its branches; to teach his workers in gold and artificers of all kinds, his falconers, hawkers, and dog-keepers; to build houses, majestic and good, beyond all the precedents of his ancestors, by his new me- chanical inventions; to recite the Saxon books (Asser, being a Welshman, always calls the Eng- lish, Saxon), and especially to learn by heart the Saxon poems, and to make others learn them ; he never desisted from studying most diligently to the best of his ability ; he attended the mass and other daUy services of religion ; he was frequent in psalm-singing and prayer; ... he bestowed alms and largesses on both natives and foreigners of all countries ; he was affable and pleasant to all, and curiously eager to investigate things un- known.' " — M. J. Guest, Lectures on the Hist, of Eng., led. 9. — "It is no easy task for anyone who has been studying his [Alfred's] life and works to set reasonable bounds to their reverence, and enthusiasm, for the man. Lest the reader should think my estimate tainted with the pro- verbial weakness of biographers for their heroes, let them turn to the words in which the earliest, and the last of the English historians of that time, sum up the character of Alfred. Florence of Worcester, writing in the century after his death, speaks of him as ' that famous, warlike, victorious king ; the zealous protector of widows, scholars. 813 ENGLAND, A. D. 855-880. Alfred the Great. ENGLAND, A. D. 955. orphans and the poor ; skilled in the Saxon poets ; affable and liberal to all ; endowed with prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance; most patient under the infirmity which he daily suffered; a most stern inquisitor in executing justice; vigi- lant aud devoted in the service of God.' Mr. Freeman, in his ' History of the Norman Con- quest,' has laid down the portrait in bold aud last- ing colours, in a passage as truthful as it is elo- quent, which those who are familiar with it will be glad to meet again, while those who do not know it will be grateful to me for substituting for any poor words of my own. ' Alfred, the unwilling author of these great changes, is the most perfect character in history. He is a sin- 'gular instance of a prince who has become a hero of romance, who, as such, has had countless im- aginary exploits attributed to him, but to wliose character romance has done no more than justice, and who appears in exactly the same light in his- tory and in fable. No other man on record has ever so thoroughly united all the virtues both of tlie ruler and of the private man. In no other man on record were so many virtues disfigured by so little alloy. A saint without superstition, a scbolar without ostentation, a warrior all whose wars were fought in the defence of his country, a conqueror whose laurels were never stained by cruelty, a prince never cast down by adversity, never lifted up to insolence in the day of triumph — there is no other name in history to compare with his. Saint Lewis comes nearest to him in the union of a more than monastic piety with the highest civil, military, and domestic virtues. Both of them stand forth in honourable contrast to the abject superstition of some other royal saints, who were so selfishly engaged in the care of their own souls that they refused either to raise up heirs for their throne, or to strike a blow on behalf of their peoijle. But even in Saint Lewis we see a disposition to forsake an immedi- ate sphere of duty for the sake of distant and unprofitable, however pious and glorious, under- takings. The true duties of the King of the French clearly lay in France, and not in Egypt or Tunis. No such charge lies at the door of the great King of the West Saxons. With an inquir- ing spirit whicli took in the whole world, for purposes alike of scientific inquiry and of Chris- tian benevolence, Alfred never forgot that his first duty was to his own people. He forestalled our own age in sending expeditions to explore the Northern Ocean, aud in sending alms to the distant Churches of India; but he neither forsook his crown, like some of his predecessors, nor neg- lected his duties, like some of his successors. Tlie virtue of Alfred, like the virtue of Washing- ton, consisted in no marvellous displays of super- human genius, but in the simple, straightfor- ward discharge of the duty of the moment. But Washington, soldier, statesman, and patriot, like Alfred, has no claim to Alfred's further characters of saint and scholar. William the Silent, too, has nothing to set against Alfred's literary merits; ind in his career, glorious as it is, there is an ele- ment of intrigue and cliicanery utterly alien to the noble simplicity of both Alfred and Washing- ton. The same union of zeal for religion and learning witli the highest gifts of the warrior and the statesman is found, on a wider field of action, in Charles the Great. But even Charles cannot aspire to the pure glory of Alfred. Amidst all lihe splendour of conquest and legislation, we can- not be blind to an alloy of personal ambition, of personal vice, to occasional unjust aggressions and occasional acts of cruelty. Among our own later princes, the great Edward alone can bear for a moment the comparison with his glorious ancestor. And, when tried by such a standard, even the great Edward fails. Even in him we do not see the same wonderful union of gifts and virtues which so seldom meet together; we can- not acquit Edward of occasional acts of violence, of occasional recklessness as to means ; we can- not attribute to him the pure, simple, almost childlike disinterestedness which marks the char- acter of Alfred.' Let Wordsworth, on behalf of the poets of England, complete the picture : ' Behold a pupil of the monkish gown. The pious Alfred, king to justice dear ! Lord of the harp and liberating spear ; Mirror of princes ! Indigent renown Might range the starry ether for a crown Equal to his deserts, who, like the year. Pours forth his bounty, like the day doth cheer. And awes like night, with mercy -tempered frown. Base from this noble miser of his time No moment steals ; pain narrows not his cares — Though small his kingdom as a spark or gem, Of Alfred boasts remote Jerusalem, And Christian India, through her widespread clime. In sacred converse gifts with Alfred shares. — Thos. Hughes, Alfred the Great, ch. 24. Also m: R. Pauli, Life of Alfred the Qreat. — Asser, Life of Alfred. — See, also, Normans, and Education, Medieval. A. D. 901. — Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Elder. A. D. 925. — Accession of the 'West Saxon king Ethelstan. A. D. 938. — The battle of Brunnaburgh. — Alfred the Great, dying in 901, was succeeded by his son, Edward, and Edward, in turn, was fol- lowed, A. D. 925, by his son Athelstane, or ^th- alsten. In the reign of Athelstane a great league was formed against him by the Northumbrian Danes with the Scots, with the Danes of Dulilin and with the Britons of Strathclyde and Cumbria. Athelstane defeated the confederates in a mighty battle, celebrated in one of the finest of Old- English war-songs, and also in one of the Sagas of the Norse tongue, as the Battle of Brunna- burgh or Brunanburh, but the site of which is unknown. ' ' Five Kings and seven northern larls or earls fell in the strife. . . . Constantlne the Scot fled to tlie north, mourning his fair- haired son, who perished in the slaughter. Anlaf [or Olaf, the leader of the Danes or Ostmen of Dublin], with a sad and scattered remnant of his forces, escaped to Ireland. . . . The victory was so decisive that, during the remainder of the reign of Athelstane, no enemy dared to rise up against him; his supremacy was acknowledged without contest, and his glory extended to dis- tant realms." — F. Palgrave, Hist, of the Anglo- Saxons, ch. 10. — Mr. Skene is of opinion that the battle of Brunnaburgh was fought at Aid- borough, near York. — W. F. Skene, Celtic Scot- land, ». 1, p. 357. A. D. 940. — Accession of the West Saxon king Edmund. A. D. 946. — Accession of the West Saxon king Edred. A. D. 955.- -Accession of the West Saxon king Edwig. 814 ENGLAND, A. D. 958. The Witenagemot. ENGLAND, A. D. 958. A. D. 958.— Accession of the West Saxon king Edgar. A. D. 958. — Completed union of the realm. Increase of kingly authority. — Approach to- wards feudalism.— Rise of the Witenagemot. —Decline of the Freemen. — ' Before Alfred's son Edward died, the whole of Mercla was in- corporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which the thing was done was more re- markable than the thing itself. Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of uphold- ing his power. But unlike the Romans, he did not garrison them with colonists from amongst his own immediate dependents. He filled them, as Henry the Fowler did afterwards in Saxony, with free townsmen, whose hearts were at one with their fellow countrymen around. Before he died in 924, the Danish chiefs in the land be- yond the Humber had acknowledged his over- lordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scot- land had given in their submission In some form which they were not likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two grandsons, Athelstan, Ed- mund, and Edred completed the work, and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule in Wessex, Edgar united the undi- vided realm under his sway in 958, he had no in- ternal enemies to suppress. He allowed the Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inlieritance of the Pictish race to possess the old Northumbrian land north of the Tweed, where they and their descendants learned the habits and speech of Englishmen. But he treated him and the other Celtic kings distinctly as his in- feriors, though it was perhaps well for him that he did not attempt to impose upon them any very tangible tokens of his supremacy. The story of his being rowed by eight kings on the Dee is doubtless only a legend by which the peaceful king "was glorified in the troubled times which followed. Such a struggle, so successfully conducted, could not fail to be accompanied by a vast increase of that kingly authority which had been on the growth from the time of its first establishment. The hereditary ealdormen, the representatives of the old kingly houses, had passed away. The old tribes, or — where their limitations had been obliterated by the tide of Danish conquest, as was the case in central and northern England — the new artificial divisions which had taken their place, were now known as shires, and the very name testified that they were regarded only as parts of a greater whole. The shire mote still continued the tradition of the old popular assemblies. At its head as presidents of its deliberations were the ealdorman and the bishop, each of them owing their appointment to the king, and it was summoned by the shire- reeve or sheriff, himself even more directly an officer of the king, whose business it was to see that all the royal dues were paid within the shire. In the more general concerns of the kingdom, the king consulted with his Witan, whose meet- mgs were called the Witenagemot, a body, which, at least for all ordinary purposes, was composed not of any representatives of the shire-motes, but of his own dependents, the ealdormen, the bishops, and a certain number of thegns whose name, meaning ' servants ', implied at least at first, that they either were or had at one time been in some way in the employment of the king. . . . The necessities of war . . . combined with the sluggishness of the mass of the population to favour the growth of a military force, which would leave the tillers of the soil to their own peaceful occupations. As the conditions which make a standing army possible on a large scale did not yet exist, such a force must be afforded by a special class, and that class must be com- posed of those who either had too much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were re- leased from the bonds which tied the cultivator to the soil, in other words, it must be composed of a landed aristocracy and its dependents. In working out this change, England was only aim- ing at the results which similar conditions were producing on the Continent. But just as the homogeneousness of the population drew even the foreign element of the church into harmony with the established institutions, so it was with the military aristocracy. It grouped itself round the king, and it supplemented, instead of over- throwing, the old popular assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had be'en marked out from their fellows at the time of tlie conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he had some of the distinguish- ing marks of either. He was not like the gesith, a mere personal follower of the king. He did not, like the eorl, owe his position to his birth. Yet his relation to the king was a close one, and he had a hold upon the land as firm as that of thfe older eorl. He may, perhaps, best be described as a gesith, who had acquired the position of an eorl without entirely throwing off his own charac- teristics. . . . There can be little doubt that Jhe change began in the practice of granting special estates in the folkland,or common undivided land, to special persons. At first this land was doubt- less held to be the property of the tribe. [This is now questioned by VinogradofE and others. See FoLCLAND.] . . . When the king rose above the tribes, he granted it himself with the consent of his Witan. A large portion was granted to churcKes and monasteries. But a large portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was called, from the book or charter which conveyed tRem to the king's own gesiths, or to members of His own family. The gesith thus ceased to be a mere member of the king's military household. He became a landowner as well, with special duties to perform to the king. ... He had special juris- diction given him over his tenants and serfs, ex- empting him and them from the authority of the hundred mote, though they still remained, except in very exceptional cases, under the authority of the shire mote. . . . Even up to the Norman con- quest this change was still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not aban- doned, where freemen enough remained to fill it. Even where all the land of a hundred had passed under the protection of a lord there was little out- ward change. . . . There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation. The thegn- hood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the free classes. Nevertheless there was a dan- ger of such a breach of continuity coming about. The freemen entered more and more largely into a condition of dependence, and there was a great risk lest such a condition of dependence should become a condition of servitude. Here and there, by some extraordinary stroke of luck, a freeman niight rise to be a thegn. But the con- dition of the class to which he belonged was de- teriorating every dav. The downward progress 815 ENGLAND, A. D. 958. Danish Conquest. ENGLAND, A. D. 1016-1042. to serfdom was too easy to take, and by large masses of the population it was already taken. Below the increasing numbers of the serfs was to be. found the lower class of slaves, who were ac- tually the property of their masters. The Witcn- agemot was in reality a select body of thegns, if the bishops, who held their lands in much the same way, be regarded as thegns. In was rather an inchoate House of Lords, than an inchoate Par- liament, after our modern ideas. It was natural that a body of men which united a great part of the wealth with almost all the influence in the kingdom should be possessed of high constitu- tional powers. The Witenagemot elected the king, though as yet they always chose him out of the royal family, which was held to have sprung from the god Woden. There were even cases in which they deposed unworthy kings." — S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mulliuger, Introd. to the Study of Em/. Hist., pt. 1, ch. 2. sect. 16-31. A. D. 975. — Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Martyr. A. D. 979. — Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready. A. D. 979-1016. — The Danish conquest. — "Then [A. D. 979] commenced one of the longest and most disastrous reigns of the Saxon kings, with the accession of Ethelred II., justly styled Ethelred the Unready. The Northmen now re- newed their plundering and conquering expedi- tions against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king and coun- try. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in 1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies whom he dared not en- counter. The tax called Dane-gelt was then levied to provide ' a tribute for the Danish men on account of the great terror which they caused.' To pay money thus was In effect to hire the enemy to renew the war. In 1003 Ethelred tried the still more weak and wicked measure of rid- ding himself of his enemies by treacherous mas- sacre. Great numbers of Danes were now living in England, intermixed with the Anglo-Saxon population. Ethelred resolved to relieve himself from all real or supposed danger of these Scan- dinavian settlers taking part with their invading kinsmen, by sending secret orders throughout his dominions for the putting to death of every Dane, man, woman, and child, on St. Brice's Day, Nov. 13. This atrocious order wa.s exe- cuted only in Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but lai-ge numbers of the Danish race were murdered there while dwelling in full security among their Saxon neighbours. . . . Among the victims was a royal Danish lady, named Gunhilde, who was sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and who had man-ied and set- tled in England. . . . The news of tlie massacre of St. Brice soon spread over the Continent, ex- citing the deepest indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north had ever be- fore sent forth, and solemnly vowed to conquer England or perish in the attempt. He landed on the south coast of Devon, obtained possession of Exeter by the treachery of its governor, and then marched through western and southern England, marking every shire with fire, famine and slaugh- ter; but he was unable to take London, which was defended against the repeated attacks of the Danes with strong courage and patriotism, such as seemed to have died out in the rest of Sason England. In 1013, the wretched king Ethelred fled the realm and sought shelter in Normandy. Sweyn was acknowledged king in all the northern and western shires, but he died in 1014, while his vow of conquest was only partly accomplished. The English now sent for Ethelred back from Normandy, promising loyalty to him as their lawful king, ' ijrovided he would rule over them more justly than he had done before.' Ethelred willingly promised amendment, and returned to reign amidst strife and misery for two years more. His implacable enemy, Sweyn, was in- deed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn had led thither was still in England, under the command of Sweyn's sou, Canute [or Cnut], a prince equal in military prowess to his father, and far superior to him and to all other princes of the time in statesmanship and general ability. Ethelred died in 1016, while the war with Canute was yet raging. Ethelred's son, Edmund, sur- named Ironside, was chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but great num- bers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute. The remarkable personal valour of Ed- mund, strongly aided by the bravery of his faith- ful Londoners, maintained the war for nearly a year, when Canute agreed to a compromise, by which he and Edmund divided the land between them. But within a few months after this, the royal Ironside died by the hand of an assassin, and Canute obtained the whole realm of the English race. A Danish dynasty was now [A. D. 1016] established in England for three reigns." — Sir E. S. Creasy, Hist, of Etuj., v. 1, ch. 5. Also in: J. M. Lappenberg, Eng. under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, v. 2, pp. 151-333. — See, also, Malden, and Ass.yndun, Battles of. A. D. 1016. — Accession and death of King Edmund Ironside. A. D. 1016-1042. — The Reign of the Danish kings. — "Cnut's rule was not as terrible as might have been feared. He was perfectly un- scrupulous in striking down the treacherous and mischievous chieftains who had made a trade of Ethelred's weakness and the country's divisions. But he was wise and strong enough to rule, not by increasing but by allaying those divisions. Resting his power upon his Scandinavian king- doms beyond the sea, upon his Danish country- men in England, and his Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his service, he was able, without e veu the appearance of weakness, to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as common instruments of Ms power. Fidelity counted more with him than birth. To bring England itself into unity was beyond his power. 'The device which he hit upon was operative onlj' in hands as strong as his own. There were to be four great earls, deriving their name from the Danish word jarl, centralizing the forces of government in Wessex, in Mercia, in East Anglia, and in Northumberland. With Cnut the four were officials of the highest class. They were there because he placed them there. They would cease to be there if he so willed it. But it could hardly be that it would always be so. Some day or another, unless a great catas- trophe swept away Cnut and his creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made evi- dent openly." — S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mul- linger, Int. to tfie Study of Eng. Hist., ch. 3, sect. 816 ENGLAND, 1016-1042. 7?ie last Saxoji King. ENGLAND, 1043-1066. 25. — "He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European dominion than any English sov- ereign has ever done ; and perhaps also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came near him except the king of Germany, the em- peror, with whom he was allied as an equal. The king of the Norwegians, the Danes, and a great part of the Swedes, was in a position to found a Scandinavian empire with IJritain an- nexed. Canute's division of his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be impos- sible; Norway, for a century and a half after his strong hand was removed, was broken up amongst an anarchical crew of piratic and blood- thirsty princes, nor couid Denmark be regarded as likely to continue united with England. The English nation was too much divided and de- moralised to retain hold on Scandinavia, even if the condition of the latter had allowed it. Hence Canute determined that during his life, as after his death, the nations should be governed on their own principles. . . . The four nations of the English, Northumbrians, East Angles, Mer- cians and West Saxons, might, each under their own national leader, obey a sovereign who was strong enough to enforce peace amongst them. The great earldoms of Canute's reign were per- haps a nearer approach to a feudal division of England than anything which followed the Nor- man Conquest. . . . And the extent to which this creation of the four earldoms affected the history of the next half-century cannot be ex- aggerated. The certain tendency of such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the cer- tain tendency of the hereditary occupation of great fiefs ultimately to overwhelm the royal power, are well exemplified. . . . The Norman Conquest restored national unity at a tremendous temporary sacrifice, just as the Danish Conquest in other ways, and by a reverse process, had helped to create it." — W. Stubbs, Const. Hut. of Eng., ch. 7, sect. 77.— Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold Barefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute (1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was momentarily restored. — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 6. A. D. 1035. — Accession of Harold, son of Cnut. A. D. 1040. — Accession of Harthacnut, or Hardicanute. A. D. 1042. — Accession of Edv^ard the Confessor. A. D. 1042-1066.— The last of the Saxon kings. — "The love which Canute had inspired by his wise and conciliatory rule was dissipated by the bad government of his sons, Harold and Harthacnut, who ruled in turn. After seven years of misgovemment, or rather anarchy, Eng- land, freed from the hated rule of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its old line of kings, and ' all folk chose Edward [surnamed The Con- fessor, son of Etheired the Unready] to king,' as was his right by birth. Not that he was, accord- ing to our ideas, the direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, stUl lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Ed- ward the Confessor, reasserted for the last time their right to elect that one of the hereditary line who was most available. With the reign of Edward the Confessor the Norman Conquest really began. We have seen the connection be- tween England and Normandy begun by the marriage of Etheired the Unready to Emma the daughter of Richard the Fearless, and cemented by the refuge offered to the English exiles in the court of the Norman duke. Edward had long found a home there in Canute's time. . . . Brought up under Norman influence, Edward had contracted the ideas and sympathies of ^s adopted home. On his election to the English throne the French tongue became the language of the court, Norman favourites followed in his train, to be foisted into important offices of State and Church, and thus inaugurate that Norman- iziug policy which was to draw on the Norman Conquest. Had it not been for this, William would never have had any claim on England." The Normanizing policy of king Edward roused the opposition of a strong English party, headed by the great West-Saxon Earl Godwine, who had been lifted from an obscure origin to vast power in England by the favor of Canute, and whose son Harold held the earldom of East Anglia. "Edward, raised to the throne chiefly through the influence of Godwine, shortly mar- ried his daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the assistance, and almost over- shadowed by the power of the great earl." But Edward was Norman at heart and Godwine was thoroughly English; whence quarrels were not long in arising. They came to the crisis in 1051, by reason of a bloody tumult at Dover, provoked by insolent conduct on the part of a train of French visitors returning home from Edward's Court. Godwine was commanded to punish the townsmen of Dover and refused, whereupon the king obtained a sentence of outlawry, not only against the earl, but against his sons. "God- wine, obliged to bow before the united power of his enemies, was forced to fly the land. He went to Flanders with his son Swegen, while Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland, to be well received by Dermot king of Leinster. Many Englishmen seem to have followed him in his exile: for a year the foreign party was triumph- ant, and the first stage of the Norman Conquest complete. It was at this important crisis that William [Duke of Normandy], secure at home, visited his cousin Edward. . . . Friendly rela- tions we may be sure had existed between the two cousins, and if, as is not improbable, Wil- liam had begun to hope that he might some day succeed to the English throne, what more favour- able opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost all hopes of ever hav- ing any children. . . . William came, and it would seem, gained all that he desired. For this most probably was the date of some promise on Edward's part that William should succeed him on his death. The whole question is beset with difliculties. The Norman chroniclers alone men- tion it, and give no dates. Edward had no right to will away his crown, the disposition of which lay with King and Witenagemot (or assembly of Wise Men, the grandees of the country), and his last act was to reverse the promise, if ever given, in favour of Harold, Godwine 's son. But were it not for some such promise, it is hard to see liow William could have subsequently made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of his claim. . . . William returned to Nor- mandy; but next year Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons re- turned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London declared for them, and the king sub- 52 817 ENGLAND, 1042-1066. Claims of William of Normandy. ENGLAND, 1066. mitted himself to a reconciliation. " The party of Godwine once more ruled supreme, and no mention was made of the gift of the crown to William, Godwine, indeed, did not long sur- vive his restoration, but dying the year after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the" West-Sax- ons and the most important man in England." King Edward the Confessor lived yet thirteen years after this time, during which period Earl Harold grew continually in influence and con- spicuous headship of the English party. In 1063 It was Harold's misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he was made captive. Dnke William of Normandy intervened in his behalf and obtained his release; and "then, as the" price of his assistance, extorted an oath from Harold, soon to be used against him. Harold, it is said, became his man, promised to marry Wil- liam's daughter Adela, to place Dover at once in William's hands, and support his claim to the English throne on Edward's death. By a strata- gem of William's the oath was unwittingly taken on holy relics, hidden by the duke under the table on which Harold laid hands to swear, whereby, according to the notions of those days, the* oath was rendered more binding." But two years later, when Edward the Confessor died, the English Witenagemot chose Harold to be king, disregarding Edward's promise and Har- old's oath to the Duke of Normandy. — A. H. Johnson, T/w Normans in Europe, cli. 10 and 13. Also in: E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the. Norman Cong. ofEnf/., eh. 7-10.— J. R. Green, Tlie Gonq. of Eng., eh. 10. A. D. io66. — Election and coronation of Harold. A. D. io66 (spring and summer). — Prepara- tions of Duke \A/illiam to enforce his claim to the English crown. — On receiving news of Ed- ^vard's death and of Harold's acceptance of the crown, Duke William of Normandy lost no time In demanding from Harold the performance of the engagements to which lie had pledged him- self by his oath. Harold answered that the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compul- sion under which it was given ; that the crown of England was not his to bestow, and that, being tibe chosen king, he could not marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had this reply he proceeded vrith vigor to secure from his own knights and barons the support he would need for the enforcing of his rights, as he deemed them, to the sovereignty of the English reslm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was held at Lillebonne, for the consider- ation of the matter. " In this memorable meet- ing there was much diversity of opinion. The Duke could not command his vassals to cross the sea; their tenures did not compel them to such service. William could only request their aid to fight his battles in England: many refused to engage in this dangerous expedition, and great debates arose. . . . William, who could not re- store order, withdrew into another apartment: and, calling the barons to him one by one, he argued and reasoned with each of these sturdy vassals separately, and apart from the others. He exhausted all the arts of persuasion; — their present courtesy, he engaged, should not be turned into a precedent, . . . and the fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuner- ation, the barons assented. . . . William did not confine himself to his own subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the neigh bouring states were invited to join his standard. . . . To all, such promises were made as should best incite them to the enterprise — lands, — liveries, — money, — according to their rank and degree ; and the port of St. Pierre-sur-Dive was appointed as the place where all the forces should assemble. William had discovered four most valid reasons for the prosecution of his offensive warfare against a neighbouring people: — the bequest made by his cousin; — the perjury of Harold ; — the expulsion of the Normans, at the| instigation, as he alleged, of Godwin; — and, lastl)', the massacre of the Danes by Ethclred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See. Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, al- lowed, nay, even urged liim to punish the crime, provided England, when conquered, should be held as the fief of St. Peter. . . . Hildebrand, Archdeacon of the Church of Rome, afterwards the celebrated Pope Gregory VII., greatly as- sisted by the support which he gave to the decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope trans- mitted to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfauon of St. Peter, and a precious ring. In which a relic ofthe chief of the Apostles was enclosed."— Sir F. Palgrave, Ilist. of Normandy and Eng., v. 3, pp. 300-303.— " William con- vinced, or seemed to convince, all men out of England and Scandinavia that his claim to the English crown was just and holy, and that it was a good work to help him to assert it in arms. . . . William himself doubtless thought his own claim the better; he deluded himself as he de- luded others. But we are more concerned with William as a statesman ; and if it be statesman- ship to adapt means to ends, whatever the ends may be, if it be statesmanship to make men believe the worse cause is the better, then no man ever showed higher statesmanship than William showed In his great pleading before all Western Christendom. . . . Others had claimed crowns ; none had taken such pains to convince all mankind that the claim was a good one. Such an appeal to public opinion marks on one side a great advance." — E. A. Freeman. William the Conqueror, eh. 6. A. D. io66 (September). — The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their over- throw at Stamford Bridge. — "Harold [the English king], as one of his misfortunes, had to face two powerful armies, in distant parts of the kingdom, almost at the same time. Rumours concerning the intentions and preparations of the Duke of Normandy soon reached England. Dur- ing the greater part of the summer, Harold, at the head of a large naval and military force, had been on the watch along the English coast. But months passed away and no enemy became visi- ble. William, it was said, had been apprised of the measures which had been taken to meet him. . . . Many supposed that, on various grounds, the enterprise had been abandoned. Provisitjns also, for so great an army, became scarce. The men began to disperse; and Harold, disbanding the remainder, returned to London. But the news now came that Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, had landed in the north, and was ravag- ing the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic feuds which did so much 818 ENGLAND, 1066. Battle of Sentac. ENGLAND, 1066. at this juncture to weaken the power of the English. Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in the most arbitrary man- ner, and liad perpetrated atrocious crimes in furtherance of his objects. The result was an amount of disaffection which seems to have put it out of the power of liis friends to sustain him. He had married a daughter of Baldwin, count of Flanders, and so became brother-in-law to the duke of Normandy. His brother Harold, as he affirmed, had not done a brother's part towards him, and he was more disposed, in consequence, to side with the Norman than with the Saxon in the approaching struggle. The army with which he now appeared consisted mostly of Nor- wegians and Flemings, and their avowed object was to divide not less than half the kingdom be- tween them. . . . [The young Mercian earls Edwin and Morcar] summoned their forces . . . to repel the invasion under Tostig. Before Har- old could reach the north, they hazarded an engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from Bishopstoke. Their meas- ures, however, were not wisely taken. They were defeated with great loss. The invaders seem to have regarded this victory as deciding the fate of that part of the kingdom. They ob- tained hostages at York, and then moved to Stamford Bridge, where they began the work of dividing the northern parts of England between them. But in the midst of these proceedings clouds of dust were seen in the distance. The first thought was, that the multitude which seemed to be approaching must be friends. But the illusion was soon at an end. The dust raised was by the march of an army of West Saxons under the command of Harold." — R. Vaughan, Bevolutions of Eng. Hist., bk. 3, ch. 1. — "Of the details of that awful day [Sept. 25, 1066] we have no authentic record. We have indeed a glorious description [in the Heimskringla of Snorro Sturleson], conceived in the highest spirit of the warlike poetry of the North ; but it is a description which, when critically examined, proves to be hardly more worthy of belief than a battle-piece in the Iliad. ... At least we know that the long struggle of that day was crowned by complete victory on the side of England. The leaders of the invading host lay each man read)' for all that England had to give him, his seven feet of English ground. There Harold of Norway, the last of the ancient Sea-Kings, yielded up that flery soul which had braved death in so many forms and in so many lands. . . . There Tostig, the son of Godwine, an exile and a traitor, ended in crime and sorrow a life which had begun with promises not less bright than that of his royal brother. . . . The whole strength of the Northern army was broken; a few only escaped by flight, and found means to reach the ships at Riccall." — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 14, sect. 4. A. D. io66 (October). — The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings. — The battle of Stamford-bridge was fought on Monday, Sept. 25, A. D. 1066. Three days later, onthe Thursday, Sept. 28, William of Normandy landed his more formidable army of invasion at Pevensey, on the extreme southeastern coast. The news of Wil- liam's landing reached Harold, at York, on the following Sunday, it is thought, and his victori- ous but worn and wasted army was led instantly back, by forced marches, over the route it had traversed no longer than the week before. Wait- ing at London a few days for fresh musters to join him, the English king set out from that city Oct. 12, and arrived on the following day at a point seven miles from the camp which his an- tagonist had entrenched at Hastings. Meantime the Normans had been cruelly ravaging the coast country, by way of provoking attack. Harold felt himself driven by the devastation they com- mitted to face the issue of battle without wait- ing for a stronger rally. "Advancing near enough to the coast to check William's ravages, he intrenched himself on the hill of Senlac, a low spur of the Sussex Downs, near Hastings, in a position which covered London, and forced the Norman army to concentrate. With a host sub- sisting by pillage, to concentrate is to starve, and no alternative was left to William but a decisive victory or ruin. Along the higher ground that leads from Hastings the Duke led his men in the dim dawn of an October morning to the mound of Telham. It was from this point that the Nor- mans saw the host of the English gathered thickly behind a rough trench and a stockade on the height of Senlac. Marshy ground covered their right. ... A general charge of the Norman foot opened the battle ; in front rode the minstrel Taillefer, tossing his sword in the air and catch- ing it again while he chanted the song of Roland. He was the first of the host who struck a blow, and he was the first to fall. The charge broke vainly on the stout stockade behind which the English warriors plied axe and javelin with fierce cries of ' Out, Out,' and the repulse of the Norman footmen was followed by the repulse of the Norman horse. Again and again the Duke rallied and led them to the fatal stockade. . . . His Breton troops, entangled in the marshy ground on his left, broke in disorder, and a cry arose, as the panic spread through the army, that the Duke was slain. ' I live,' shouted Wil- liam as he tore off his helmet, ' and by God's help will conquer yet.' Maddened by repulse, the Duke spurred right at the standard ; unhorsed, his terrible mace struck down Gj'rth, the King's brother, and stretched Leofwine, a second of Godwine's sons, beside him; again dismounted, a blow from his hand hurled to the ground an unmannerly rider who would not lend him his steed. Amid the roar and tumult of the battle he turned the flight he had arrested into the means of victor}'. Broken us the stockade was by his desperate onset, the shield-wall of the warriors behind it still held the Normans at bay, when William by a feint of flight drew a part of the English force from their post of vantage. Turning on his disorderly pursuers, the Duke cut them to pieces, broke through the abandoned line, and was master of the central plateau, while French and Bretons made good their ascent on either flank. At three the hill seemed won, at six the fight still raged around the standard, where Harold's hus-carls stood stubbornly at bay on the spot marked afterward by the high altar of Battle Abbey. An order from the Duke at last brought his archers to the front, and their arrow-flight told heavily on the dense masses crowded around the King. As the sun went down, a shaft pierced Harold's right eye ; he fell between the royal ensigns, and the battle closed with a desperate melee over his corpse." — J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, ch. 2, sect. 4. 819 ENGLAND, 1066. Spoils of the Conquest. ENGLAND, 1067-1087. Also in : E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 15, sect. 4. — E. S. Creasy, Fifteen Deeinve Battles of the World, ch. 8. — Wace, Boman de Ron ; trans, by Sir A. Malet. A. D. 1066-1071. — The Finishing of the Nor- man Conquest. — "It must be well understood that this great victory [of Senlac] did not make Duke William King nor put him in possession of the whole land. He still held only part of Sus- sex, and the people of the rest of the kingdom showed as yet no mind to submit to him. If England had had a leader left like Harold or Gyrth, William might have had to fight as many battles as Cnut had, and that with much less chance of winning in the end. For a large part of England fought willingly on Cnut's side, while William had no friends in England at all, except a few Norman settlers. William did not call himself King till he was regularly crowned more than two months later, and even then he had real possession only of about a third of the kingdom. It was more than three years before he had full possession of all. Still the great fight on Senlac none the less settled the fate of England. For after that fight William never met with any general resistance. . . . During* the year 1067 William made no further con- quests; all western and northern England re- mained unsubdued; but, except in Kent and Herefordshire, there was no fighting in any part of the land which had really submitted. The ne.xt two years were the time in which all Eng- land was really conquered. The former part of 1068 gave him the West. The latter part of that year gave him central and northern England as far as Yorkshire, the extreme north and north- west being still unsubdued. The attempt to win Durham in the beginning of 1069 led to two re- volts at York. Later in the year all the north and west was again in arms, and the Danish fleet [of King Swegen, in league with the English patriots] came. But the revolts were put down one by one, and the great winter campaign of 1069-1070 conquered the still imsubdued parts, ending with the taking of Chester. Early in 1070 the whole land was for the first time in William's possession; there was no more fight- ing, and he was able to giye his mind to the more peaceful part of his schemes, what we may call the conquest of the native Church by the appointment of foreign bishops. But in the summer of 1070 began the revolt of the Fenlaud, and the defence of Ely, which lasted till the autumn of 1071. After that William was full King everywhere without dispute. There was no more national resistance ; there was no revolt of any large part of the country. . . . The con- quest of the land, as far as lighting goes, was now finished." — E. A. Freeman, Short Mist, of the Norinan Conq. of Eng., ch. 8, sect. 9y ch. 10, sect. 16. A. D. 1067-1087.— The spoils of the Con- quest. — " The Norman army . . . remained con- centrated around London [in the winter of 1067], and upon the southern and eastern coasts nearest ' Gaul. The partition of the wealth of the invaded territory now almost solely occupied them. Com- missioners went over the whole extent of country in which the army had left garrisons ; they took an exact inventory of property of every kind, public and private, carefully registering every particular. ... A close inquiry was made into the names of all the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in battle, or survived the de- feat, or by involuntary delays had been prevented from joining the royal standard. All the prop- erty of these three classes of men, lands, reve- nues, furniture, houses, were confiscated; the children of the first class were declared forever disinlierited ; the second class, were, in like man- ner, whoUj' dispossessed of their estates and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain their lives. Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention of taking up arms ; but, by special grace, they were allowed to entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and devotion to the for- eign power, not they, indeed, but their sons, might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion of their paternal heritage. Such was the law of the conquest, according to the unsuspected testimony of a man nearly con- temporary with and of the race of the conquer- ors [Richard Lenoir or Noirot, bishop of Ely in the 13th century]. The immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of those ad- venturers of every nation who had enrolled under the banner of the duke of Normandy. . . . Some received their pay in money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had fallen in the battle. One, only, among the knights who had accompanied the conqueror, claimed neither lands, gold, nor wife, and would accept none of the spoils of the conquered. His name was Guilbert Fitz-Rich- ard : he said that he had accompanied his lord to England because such was his duty, but that stolen goods had no attraction for him." — A. Thierry, Hist, of the Conq. of Eng. by the Nor- mans, bk. 4. — "Though many confiscations took place, in order to gratify the Norman army, yet the mass of property was left in the hands of its former possessors. Offices of high trust were bestowed upon Englishmen, even upon those whose family renown might have raised the most aspiring thoughts. But, partly through the in- solence and injustice of AVilliam's Norman vas- sals, partly through the suspiciousness natural to a man conscious of having overturned the national government, his yoke soon became more heavy. The English were oppressed ; they re- belled, were subdued, and oppressed again. . . . An extensive spoliation of property accompanied these revolutions. It appears by the great na- tional survey of Domesday Book, completed near the close of the Conqueror's reign, that the ten- ants in capite of the crown were generally for- eigners. . . . But inferior freeholders were much less disturbed in their estates than the higher. . . . The valuable labours of Sir Henry Ellis, in presenting us with a complete analysis of Domes- day Book, afford an opportunity, by his list of mesne tenants at the time of the survey, to form some approximation to the relative numbers of English and foreigners holding manors under the immediate vassals of the crown. . . . Though I will not now affirm or deny that they were a majority, they [the English] form a large pro- portion of nearly 8,000 mesne tenants, who are summed up by the diligence of Sir Henry Ellis. . . . This might induce us to suspect that, great as the spoliation must appear in modern times, 820 ENGLAND, 1067-1087. The Camp of Refuge. ENGLAND, 1085-1086. and almost completely as the nation was excluded from civil power in the commonwealth, there is some exaggeration in the language of those writers who represent them as universally re- duced to a state of penury and servitude. And this suspicion may be in some degree just. Yet those writers, and especially the most English in feeling of them all, M. Thierry, are warranted by the language of contemporarjf authorities." — H. Hallam, The MUhUe Ages. eh. 8, pt. 3.—" By right of conquest William claimed nothing. He had come to take his crown, and he had unluckily met with some opposition in taking it. The crown-lands of King Edward passed of course to his successor. As for the lands of other men, in William's theory all was forfeited to the crown. The lawful heir had been driven to seek his king- dom in arms; no Eugli.shman had helped him; many Englishmen had fought against him. All then were directly or indirectly traitors. The King might lawfully deal with the lands of all as his own. . . . After the general redemption of lands, gradually carried out as William's power advanced, no general blow was dealt at English- men as such. . . . Though the land had never seen so great a confiscation, or one so largely for the behoof of foreigners, yet there was nothing new in the thing itself. . . . Confiscation of land was the every-day punishment for various public and private crimes. . . . Once granting the original wrong of his coming at all and bringing a host of strangers with him, there is singularly little to blame in the acts of the Conqueror." — E. A. Freeman, William the Conqueror, pp. 102- 104, 126. — "After each effort [of revolt] the royal hand was laid on more heavily : more and more land changed owners, and with the change of owners the title changed. The complicated and unintelligible irregularities of the Anglo-Saxon tenures were exchanged for the simple and uni- form feudal theory. ... It was not the change from, alodial to feudal so much as from confusion to order. The actual amount of dispossession was no doubt greatest in the higher ranks." — W. Stubbs. Coihit. Hist, of Eiirj., ch. 9, sect. 95. A. D. 1069-1071. — The Camp of Refuge in the Fens. — "In the northern part of Cambridge- shire there is a vast extent of low and marshy land, intersected in every direction by rivers. All the waters from the centre of England which do not flow into the Thames or the Trent, empty themselves into these marshes, which in the lat- ter end of autumn overflow, cover the land, and are charged with fogs and vapours. A portion of this damp and swampy country was then, as now, called the Isle of Ely ; another the Isle of Thorney, a third the Isle of Croyland. This dis- trict, almost a moving bog, impracticable for cav- alry and for soldiers heavily armed, had more than once served as a refuge for the Saxons in the time of the Danish conquest; towards the close of the year 1069 it became the rendezvous of sev- eral bands of patriots from various quarters, as- sembling against the Normans. Former chief- tains, now dispossessed of their lands, succes- sively repaired hither with their clients, some by land, others by water, by the mouths of the rivers. They here constructed entrenchments of earth and wood, and established an extensive armed station, which took the name of the Camp of Refuge. The foreigners at first hesitated to attack them amidst their rushes and willows, and thus gave them time to transmit messages in every direction. at home and abroad, to the friends of old England. Become powerful, they undertook a partisan war by land and by sea, or, as the conquerors called it, robbery and piracy." — A. Thierry, Hist, of the Cong, of Eng. by the Kormans, bk. 4. — " Against the new t3'ranny the free men of the Danelagh and of Northumbria rose. If Edward the de- scendant of Cerdic had been little to them, Wil- liam the descendant of Rollo was still less. . . . So they rose, and fought ; too late, it may be, and without unity or purpose ; and they were worsted by an enemy who had both unity and purpose; whom superstition, greed, and feudal discipline kept together, at least in England, in one compact body of unscrupulous and terrible confederates. And theirs was a land worth fighting for — a good land and large : from Humber mouth inland to the Trent and merry Sherwood, across to Chester and the Dee, round by Leicester and the five burghs of the Danes ; eastward again to Huntingdon and Cambridge (then a poor village on the site of an old Roman town) ; and then northward again into the wide fens, the land of the Girvii, where the great central plateau of England slides into the sea, to form, from the rain and river washings of eight shires, lowlands of a fertility inexhausti- ble, because ever-growing to this day. Into those fens, as into a natural fortress, the Anglo-Danish noblemen crowded down instinctively from the inland to make their last stand against the French. . . . Most gallant of them all, and their leader in the fatal struggle against William, was Hereward the Wake, Lord of Bourne and ancester of that family of Wake, the arms of whom appear on the cover of this book." — C. Kingsley, Hereward the Wake, Prelude. — The defence of the Camp of Ref- uge was maintained until October, 1071, when the stronghold is said to have been betrayed by the monks of Ely, who grew tired of the disturb- ance of their peace. But Hereward did not sub- mit. He made his escape and various accounts are given of his subsequent career and his fate. — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conq. of Eng., ch. 20, sect. 1. Also in: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from Eng. Hist., first series, c. 8. A. D. 1085-1086. — The Domesday Survey and Domesday Book. — "The distinctive char- acteristic of the Norman kings [of England] was their exceeding greed, and the administrative system was so directed as to insure the exaction of the highest possible imposts. From this bent originated the great registration that William [the Conqueror] caused to be taken of all lands, whether holden in fee or at rent; as well as the census of the entire population. The respective registers were preserved in the Cathedral of Winchester, and by the Norman were designated 'le grand role,' ' le role royal,' 'le role de AVin. Chester'; but by the Saxons were termed 'the Book of the Last Judgment,' ' Doomesdaege Boc,' 'Doomsday Book.'" — B. Fischel, The '"English Constitution, ch. 1. — For a different statement see the following: "The recently attempted invasion from Denmark seems to have impressed the king with the desirability of an accurate knowledge of his resources, military and fiscal, both of which were based upon the land. The survey was completed in the remarkably short space of a single year [1085-1086]. In each shire the commissioners made their inquiries by the oaths of the sheriffs, the barons and their Norman retainers, the parish priests, the reeves 821 ENGLAND, 1085-1086. Domesday Survey, ENGLAND, 1087-1135. and six ceorls of each township. The result of their labours was a minute description of all the lands of the kingdom, with the exception of the four northern counties of Northumberland, Cum- berland, Westmoreland and Durham, and part of what is now Lancashire. It enumerates the tenauts-in-chief, under tenants, freeholders, vil- leins, and serfs, describes the nature and obliga- tions of the tenures, the value in the time of King Eadward, at the conquest, and at the date of the survey, and, which gives the key to the whole inquiry, informs the king whether any advance in the valuation could be made. . . . The returns were transmitted to Winchester, digested, and recorded in two volumes which liave descended to posterity under the name of Domesday Book. The name itself is probably derived from Domus Dei, the appellation of a chapel or vault of the cathedral at Winchester in which the survey was at first deposited." — T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Const. Hist., c7i. 2. — "Of the motives which induced the Conqueror and his council to undertake the Survey we have very little relia- ble information, and much that has been written on the subject savours more of a deduction from the result than of a knowledge of the immediate facts. We have the statement from the Char- tulary of St. Mary's, Worcester, of the appoint- ment of the Commissioners by the king himself to make the Survey. We have also the heading of the ' Inquisitio Eliensis ' which purports to give, and probably does truly give, the items of the articles of inquiry, which sets forth as fol- lows: L What is the manor called? IL Who held it in the time of King Edward 1 III. Who now holds it '? IV. How many hides ? V. What teams are there in demesne ? VI. What teams of the men? VIL What villans? VIIL What cottagers? IX. What bondmen? X. What free- men and what sokemen ? XI. What woods ? XII. What meadow ? XIII. What pastures ? XIV. What mills ? XV. What fisheries ? XVL What is added or taken away ? XVII. What the whole was worth together, and what now ? XVIII. How ranch each freeman or sokeman bad or has ? All this to be estimated three times, viz. in the time of King Edward, and when King William gave it, and how it is now, and if more can be had for it than has been had. This document is, I think, the best evidence we have of the form of the inquiry, and it tallies strictly with the form of the various returns as we now have them. . . . All external evidence failing, we arc driven back to the Record itself for evi- dence of the Conqueror's intention in framing it, and anyone who carefully studies it will be driven to the inevitable conclusion that it was framed and designed in the spirit of perfect equity. Long before the Conquest, in the period between the death of Alti'ed and that of Edward the Con- fessor, the kingdom had been rapidly declining into a state of disorganisation and decay. The defence of the kingdom and the administration of justice and keeping of the peace could not be maintained by the king's revenues. The tax of Danegeld, instituted by Ethelred at first to buy peace of the Danes, and afterwards to maintain the defence of the kingdom, had more and more come to be levied unequally and unfairly. Tlie Church had obtained enormous remissions of its liability, and its possessions were constantly in- creasing. Powerful subjects had obtained further remission, and the tax had come to be irregularly collected and was burdensome upon the smaller holders and their poor tenants, while the nobility and the Church escaped witli a small share in the burden. In short the tax had come to be collected upon an old and uncorrected assess- ment. It had probably dwindled in amount, and at last had been ultimately remitted by Edward the Confessor. Anarchy and confusion appears to have reigned throughout the realm. The Con- queror was threatened with foreign invasion, and pressed on all sides by complaints of unfair taxation on the part of his subjects. Estates had been divided and subdivided, and the inci- dence of the tax was unequal and unjust. He had to face the ditflculties before him and to count the resources of his kingdom for its defence, and the means of doing so were not at hand. In this situation his masterly and order-loving Nor- man mind instituted this great inquiry, but ordered it to be taken (as I maintain the study of the Book will show) in the most public and open manner, and with the utmost impartiality, with the view of levying the taxes of the kingdom equally and fairly upon all. The articles of his inquiry show that he was prepared to study the resources of his kingdom and consider the lia- bility of his subjects from every possible point of view." — Stuart Moore, On tJie Study of Domes- day Book (Domesday Studies, v. 1). — " Domesdaj^ Book is a vast mine of materials for the social and economical history of our country, a mine almost inexhaustible, and to a great extent as yet unworked. Among national documents it is unique. There is nothing that approaches it in interest and value except the Landuamabok, which records the names of the original settlers in Ice- land and the designations they bestowed upon the places where they settled, and tells us how the island was taken up and apportioned among them. Such a document for England, describ- ing the way in which our forefathers divided the territory they conquered, and how ' they called the lands after their own names,' would indeud be priceless. But the Domesday Book does, in- directly, supply materials for the history of the English as well as of the Norman Conquest, for it records not only how the lands of England were divided among the Norman host which con- quered at Senlac, but it gives us also the names ot the Saxon and Danish holders who possessed the lands before the great battle which changed all the future history of England, and enables us to trace the extent of the transfer of the laud from Englishmen to Normans ; it shows how far the earlier owners were reduced to tenants, and by its enumeration of the classes of population — freemen, sokemen, villans, cottiers, and slaves — it indicates the nature and extent of the earlier conquests. Thus we learn that in the West of England slaves were numerous, while in the East they were almost unknown, and hence we gather that in the districts first subdued the British population was exterminated or driven off, while in the West it,,was reduced to servitude. " — I. Tay- lor, Domesday Surmvals (Domesday Studies, v. 1). Also in: E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conquest, cU. 31-23 and app. A in v. 5. — W. de Gray Birch, Domesday Book. — F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book (Diet. Pol. Econ.). A. D. 1087-1135. — The sons of the Con- queror and their reigns. — William the Con- queror, when he died, left Normandy and Maine to his elder son Robert, the English crown to 822 ENGLAND, 1087-1135. Sons of the Conqueror. ENGLAND, 1087-1135. his stronger son, William, culled Rufus, or tlie Red, and only a legacy of £5,000 to his third son, Heury, called Beauclerc, or The Scholar. The Conqueror's half-brother, Odo, soon began to persuade the Norman barons in England to dis- place William Rufiis and plant Robert on the English throne. "The claim of Robert to suc- ceed his father in England, was supported by the respected rights of primogeniture. But the Anglo-Saxon crown had always been elective. . . . Primogeniture . . . gave at that time no right to the crown of England, independent of the election of its jiarliamentary assembly. Hav- ing secured this title, the power of Rufus rested on the foundation most congenial with the feel- ings and institutions of the nation, and from their partiality received a ijopular support, which was soon experienced to be impregnable. The dan- ger compelled the king to court his people by promises to diminish their grievances; which drew 30,000 knights spontaneously to his ban- ners, hapijy to have got a sovereign distinct from hated Normandy. The invasion of Robert, thus resisted by the English people, effected nothing but some temporary devastations. . . . The state of Normandy, under Robert's adminis- tration, for some time furnished an ample field for his ambitious uncle's activity. It continued to exhibit a negligent government in its most vicious form. . . . Odo's politics only facilitated the reannexation of Normandy to England. But tliis event was not completed in William's reign. When he retorted the attempt of Robert, by an invasion of Normandy, the great barons of both countries found themselves endangered by the conflict, and combined their interest to persuade their resjx-ctive sovereigns to a fraternal i)acifi- cation. The most important article of their re- conciliation provided, that if either should die without issue, the survivor should inherit his dominions. Hostilities were then abandoned; mutual courtesies ensued ; and Robert visited England as his brother's guest. The mind of William the Red King, was east in no common mould. It had all the greatness and the defects of the chivalric character, in its sti-oug but rudest state. Impetuous, daring, original, magnani- mous, and munificent ; it was also harsh, tyran- nical, and selfish; conceited of its own powers, loose in its moral principles, and disdaining con- sequences. . . . While Lanfranc lived, William had a counsellor whom he respected, and whose good opinion he was careful to preserve. . . . The death of Lanfranc removed the only man whose wisdom and influence could have melior- ated the king's ardent, but undisciplined tem- per. It was his misfortune, on this event, to choose for his favourite minister, an able, but an xmprinciplcd man. . . . The minister advised the king, on the death of every prelate, to seize all his temporal possessions. . . . The great reve- nues obtained from this violent innovation, tempted both the king and his minister to in- crease its productiveness, by deferring the nom- ination of every new prelate for an indefinite period. Thus he kept many bishoprics, and among them the see of Canterbury, vacant for some years ; till a severe illness alarming his con- science, he suddenly appointed Anselm to the dignity. . . . His disagreement with Anselm soon began. The prelate injudiciously began the battle by asking the king to restore, not only the possessions of his see, which were enjoyed by Lanfranc — a fair request — but also the lands which had before that time belonged to it ; a de- mand that, after so many years alteration of prop- erty, could not be complied with without great disturbance of other persons. Ansel m also exacted of the king that in all things which concerned the church, his counsels should be taken in pref- erence to every other. . . . Though Anselm, as a literary man, was an honour and a benefit to his age, yet his monastic and studious habits prevented him from having that social wisdom, that knowledge of human nature, that discreet use of his own virtuous firmness, and that mild management of turbulent power, which might have enabled him to have exerted much of the influence of Lanfranc over the mind of his sov- ereign. . . . Anselm, seeing the churches and abbeys oppressed in their property, by the royal orders, resolved to visit Rome, and to concert with the pope the measures most adapted to overawe the king. . . . William threatened, that if he did go to Rome, he would seize all the possessions of the archbishopric. Anselm de- clared, that he would rather travel naked and on foot, than desist from his resolution; and he went to Dover with his pilgrim's staff and wal- let. He was searched before his departure, that he might carry away no money, and was at last allowed to sail. But the king immediately exe- cuted his threat, and sequestered all his lands and property. This was about three years be- fore the end of the reign. . . . Anselm continued in Italy till William's death. The possession of Normandy was a leading object of William's ambition, and he gradually attained a prepon- derance in it. His first invasion compelled Robert to make some cessions; these were increased on his next attack: and when Robert determined to join the Crusaders, he mortgaged the whole of Normandy to William for three years, for 10,000 marks. He obtained the usual success of a powerful invasion in Wales. The natives were overpowered on the plains, but annoyed the in- vaders in their mountains. He marched an army against Malcolm, king of Scotland, to punish his incursions. Robert advised the Scottish king to conciliate William ; Malcolm yielded to his coun- .sel and accompanied Robert to the English court, but on his return, was treacherously attacked by Mowbray, the earl of Northumbria, and killed. William regretted the perfidious cruelty of the action. . . . Tlie government of William appears to have been beneficial, both to England and Normandy. To the church it was oppressive. . . . He had scarcely reigned twelve years, when he fell by a violent death." He was hunt- ing with a few attendants in the New Forest. "It happened that, his friends dispersing in pursuit of game, he was left alone, as some authorities intimate, with Walter Tyrrel, a noble knight, whom he had brought out of France, and admitted to his table, and to whom he was much attached. As the sun was about to set, a stag passed before the king, who discharged an arrow at it. . . . At the same moment, another stag crossing, Walter TyiTel discharged an arrow at it. At this precise juncture, a shaft struck the king, and buried itself in his breast. He fell, without a word, upon the arrow, and ex- pired on the spot. ... It seems to be a ques- tionable point, whether Walter Tyrrel actually shot the king. That opinion was certainly the most prevalent at the time, both here and in 823 ENGLAND, 1087-1135. Reign of Stephen. ENGLAND. 1135-1154. France. . . . None of the authorities intimate a belief of a purposed assassination ; and, tlierefore. It would be unjust now to impute it to any one. . . . Henry was hunting in a different part of the New Forest when Kufus fell. ... He left the body to the casual charity of the passing rustic, and rode precipitately to Winchester, to seize the royal treasure. . . . He obtained the treasure, and proceeding hastily to London, was on the following Sunday, the third day after "William's death, elected king, and crowned. . . . He began his reign by removing the unpopular agents of his unfortunate brother. He recalled Anselm, and conciliated the clergy. He grati- fied the nation, by abolishing the oppressive ex- actions of the previous reign. He assured many benefits to the barons, and by a charter, signed on the day of his coronation, restored to the peo- ple tlieir Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges, as amended by his father ; a measure which ended the pecuniary oppressions of his brother, and which favoured tlie growing liberties of the na- tion. The Conqueror had noticed Henry's ex- panding intellect very early ; had given him the best education which the age could supply. . . . He became the most learned monarch of his day, and acquired and deserved the surname of Beau- clerc, or fine scholar. No wars, no cares of state, could afterwards deprive him of his love of literature. The nation soon felt the impulse ftnd the benefit of their sovereign's intellectual taste. He acceded at the age of 33, and gratified the nation by marrying and crowning Mathilda, daughter of the sister of Edgar Etheling by Mal- colm the king of Scotland, who had been waylaid and killed. " — S. Turner, Jlist. of England during the Middle Ages, v. 1, ch. 5-6. — The Norman lords, hating the "English ways" of Henry, were soon in rebellion, undertaking to put Robert of Normandy (who had returned from the Crusade) in his place. The quarrel went on till the battle of Tenchebray, 1106, in which Robert was de- feated and taken prisoner. He was imprisoned for life. The duchy and the kingdom were again united. The war in Normandy led to a war with Louis king of France, who had es- poused Robert's cause. It was ended by the battle of Bremule, 1119, where the French suf- fered a bad defeat. In Henry's reign all south Wales was conquered; but the north Welsh princes held out. Another expedition against them was preparing, when, in 1135, Henry fell ill at the Castle of Lions in Normandy, and died. — E. A. Freeman, The reign of William Rufus and accession of Henry I. Also in : Sir F. Palgrave, Hist, of Normandy and Eng. , v. 4. A. D. 113S-1154.— The miserable reign of Stephen. — Civil war, anarchy and wretched- ness in England. — The transition to heredi- tary monarchy. — After the death of William the Conqueror, the English throne was occupied in succession by two of his sons, William II., or William Rufus (1087-1100), and Henry I., or Henry Beauclerk (1100-1135). The latter out- lived his one legitimate son, and bequeathed the crown at his death to his daughter, Matilda, widow of the Emperor Henry V. of Germany and now wife of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. This latter marriage had been very unpopular, both in England and Normandy, and a strong party refused to recognize the Empress Matilda, as she was commonly called. This party maintained the superior claims of the family of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, who had married the Earl of Blois. Naturally their choice would have fallen upon Theobald of Blois, the eldest of Adela's sons ; but his more enterpris- ing younger brother Stephen supplanted him. Hastening to England, and winning the favour of the citizens of London, Stephen secured the royal treasure and persuaded a council of peers to elect him king. A most grievous civil war ensued, which lasted for nineteen terrible years, during which long period there was anarchy and great wretchedness in England. "The land was filled with castles, and the castles with armed banditti, who seem to have carried on their ex- tortions under colour of the military commands bestowed by Stephen on every petty castellan. Often the very belfries of churches were fortified. On the poor lay the burden of building these strongholds; the rich suffered in their donjeons. Many were starved to death, and these were the happiest. Others were flung into cellars filled with reptiles, or hung up by the thumbs till they told where their treasures were concealed, or crippled in frames which did not suffer them to move, or held just resting on the ground by sharp iron collars round the neck. The Earl of Essex used to send out spies who begged from door to door, and then reported in what houses wealth was still left ; the alms-givers were pres- ently seized and imprisoned. The towns that could no longer pay the blackmail demanded from them were burned. . . . Sometimes the peasants, maddened by misery, crowded to the roads that led from a field of battle, and smote down the fugitives without any distinction of sides. The bishops cursed vainly, when the very churches were burned and monks robbed. ' To till the ground was to plough the sea; the earth bare no corn, for the land was all laid waste by such deeds, and men said openly that Christ slept, and his saints. Such things, and more than we can say, suffered we nineteen winters for our sins' (A. 8. Chronicle). . . . Many soldiers, sickened with the unnatural war, put on the white cross and sailed for a nobler battle-field iu the East." As Matilda's son Henry — afterwards Henry II. — grew to manhood, the feeling in his favor gained strength and his party made head against the weak and incompetent Stephen. Finally, in 1153, peace was brought about under an agree- ment "that Stephen should wear the crown till his death, and Henry receive the homage of the lords and towns of the realm as laeir apparent." Stephen died the next year and Henry came to the throne with little further dispute. — C. H. Pearson, Hist, of Eng. during the Early and Middle Ages, ch. 28. — " Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same stand-point as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. . . . His weakness throughout his reign . . . was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. Th&sewere — (1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as he gave satis- 824 ENGLAND, 1135-1154. Reign of Stephen. ENGLAND, 1135-1154. faction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, hang- ing over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to further demands. . . . The position of his op- ponents throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the 'contract' justi- fied ipso facto revolt on theirs ; the second, that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous diffidatio. This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman followers more abso- lute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for a time of this per- nicious principle into England. . . . Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary right according to feudal rules. For the right view on this sub- ject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period: — 'The crown then continued to be elective. . . . But whilst the elective prin- ciple was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of inheritance, and inherit- ance as primogeniture, was recognized as co- ordinate. . . . The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the heredi- tary principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the elec- tive theory. ' Mr. Freeman, though writing witli a strong bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen 'was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used.' He urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not in his sup- planting a riglitful heir. And he aptly suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first appears under Henry H., and in the pages of William of Newburgh. So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim ? I think that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ('regis Henrici filia'), but slie claimed it further because the succession had been assured to her by oath (' sibi juratum ') as such. It is important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded in the light of an election. . . . 'The Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the least, based their claim on her riglit to the throne as her father's heir, and . . . she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a free election. . . . The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough to suc- ceed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have done so. . . . Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English crown presents considerable analogy to tliat of canonical election in the case of Eng- lish bishoprics. In both cases a free election de- generated into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of cliange already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to ex- tort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, and when they sub- sequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine right ('Dei gratia'), and attempts to reduce that election to nothing more than a national ' assent ' to his succession. Obviously, the whole ques- tion turned on whether the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. ... In comparing Stephen with his successor the difference between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an im- patience of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction; at the accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the in- troduction of his centralizing administrative re- forms. He anticipated the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by com- pact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was con- fronted throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all the dis- content in his realm ; but Henry reigned for as long as Stephen without a rival to trouble him ; and when he found at length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as effectually as the followers of, the Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that elficient administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time to construct. It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects." — J. H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, ch. 1. Also in ; Mrs. J. R. Green, Henry the Second, ch. 1. — See, also. Standard, Battle of thb (A. D. 1137). 825 ENGLAND, 1154-1189. First of the Angevin Kings. ENGLAND, 1162-1170. A. D. 1154-1189.— Henry II., the first of the Angevin kings (Plantagenets) and his empire. — Henry II., who came to the English throne on Stephen's death, was aheady, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From his fatlier he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine ; through his motlier, ]\Iatilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom of Nor- mandy as well as the kingdom of England ; by marriage witli Eleanor, of Aquitaine, or Guienne, he added to his empire the princely domain which included Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, Perigord, Limousin, Angoumois, with claims of suzerainty over Auvergne and Toulouse. "Henry found himself at twenty-one ruler of dominions such as no king before him had ever dreamed of uniting. He was master of both sides of the English Channel, and by his alliance with his uncle, the Covmt of Flanders, he had command of the French coast from the Scheldt to the Pyrenees, while his claims on Toulouse would carry him to the shores of the Mediter- ranean. His subjects told with pride how ' his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the Pyrenees ' ; there was no monarch save the Em- peror himself who ruled over such vast domains. . . . His aim [a few years later] seems to have been to rival in some sort the Empire of the West, and to reign as an over-king, with sub-kings of his various provinces, and England as one of them, around him. He was connected with all the great ruling houses. . . . England was forced out of her old isolation ; her interest in the world without was suddenly awakened. Englisli schol- ars thronged the foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned travellers, scholars, am- bassadors, as to what was passing abroad. The influence of English learning and English state- craft made itself felt all over Europe. Never, perhaps, in all the history of England was there a time when Englishmen played so great a part abroad. " The king who gathered tliis wide, in- congruous empire under his sceptre, by mere circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal, in many respects, to its great- ness. " He was a foreign king who never spoke the Englisli tongue, who lived and moved for the most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of Brabangons and hirelings. ... It was under the rule of a foreigner such as this, however, that the races of conquerors and con- quered in England first learnt to feel that they were one. It was by his power that England, Scotland and Ireland were brought to some vague acknowledgement of a common suzerain lord, and the foundations laid of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was he who abol- ished feudalism as a system of government, and left it little more than a system of land tenure. It was he who defined the relations established be- tween Church and State, and decreed that in Eng- land churchman as well as baron was to be held under the Common Law. . . . His reforms estab- lished the judicial system whose main outlines have been preserved to our own day. It was through his ' Constitutions ' and his ' Assizes ' that It came to pass that over all the world the English- speaking races are governed by English and not by Roman law. It was by his genius for govern- ment that the servants of the royal household became transformed into Ministers of State. It w as he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our continental relations for seven hun- dred years. The impress which the personality of Henry II. left upon his time meets us wherever we turn." — Mrs. J. R. Green, Henry the Second, ch. 1-2. — Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Coeur de Lion), and John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the Plan- tagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish habit ascribed to Henry's father, Coimt Geoffrey, of "adorning his cap witli a sprig of ' plantagenista, ' the broom which in early sum- mer makes the open country of Anjou and JIaine a blaze of living gold." Richard retained and ruled the great realm of his father; but John lost most of his foreign inheritance, including Normandy, and became the unwilling benefac- tor of England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta. — K. Norgate, England under the Angerin Kings. Also ik : W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets. — See, also, Aquitaine (Guienne): A. D. 1137- 1152; Ireland: A. D. 1109-1175. A. D. 1162-1170. — Conflict of King and Church. — The Constitutions of Clarendon. — Murder of Archbishop Becket. — "Archbishop Theobald was at first the King's chief favourite and adviser, but his health and his intiuence de- clining, Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted with the exer- cise of all the powers of the crown. . . . The exact time of his appointment as Chancellor has not been ascertained, the records of the transfer of the Great Seal not beginning till a subsequent reign, and old biographers being always quite careless about dates. But he certainly had this dignitj' soon after Henry's accession. . . . Becket continued Chancellor till the year 1162, without any abatement in his favour with the King, or in the power which he possessed, or in the energy he displayed, or in the splendour of his career. ... In April, 1161, Archbishop Theo- bald died. Henry declared that Becket should succeed, — no doubt counting upon his co-opera- tion in carrying on the policy hitherto pursued in checking the encroachments of the clergy and of the see of Rome. . . . The same opinion of Becket's probable conduct was generally enter- tained, and a cry was raised that ' the Church was in danger.' The English bishops sent a representation to Henry against the appointment, and the electors long refused to obey his man- date, saying that ' it was indecent that a man who was rather a soldier than a priest, and who had devoted himself to hunting and falconry in- stead of the study of the Holy Scriptures, should be placed in the chair of St. Augustine. "... The universal expectation was, that Becket would now attempt the jsart so successfully played by Cardinal Wolsey in a succeeding age ; that, Chancellor and Archbishop, he would con- tinue the minister and personal friend of the King ; that he would study to support and ex- tend all the prerogatives of the Crown, which he himself was to exercise ; and that in the palaces of which he was now master he would live with increased magnificence and luxury. . . . Never was there so wonderful a transformation. Whether from a predetermined purpose, or from a sudden change of inclination, he immediately became in every respect an altered man. Instead 826 JDNGLAND, 1163-1170. nenry U. and Becket. ENGLAND, 1162-1170. of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the humble and squalid penitent. Next his skin he wore hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his drink was water, ren- dered nauseous by an infusion of fennel. By way of further penance and mortification, he frequently inflicted stripes on his naked back. . . . He sent the Great Seal to Henry, in Nor- mandy, with this short message, 'I desire that you will provide yourself with another Chan- sellor, as I find myself hardly sufiicient for the duties of one office, and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager for his eleva- tion, was now grievously disappointed and alarmed. ... He at once saw that he had been deceived in his choice. . . . The grand struggle which the Church was then making was, that all churchmen should be entirely exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, whatever crime they might have committed. . . . Henry, thinking that he had a favourable opportunity for bringing the dispute to a crisis, summoned an assembly of all the prelates at Westminster, and himself put to them this plain question: 'Whether they were willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the kingdom?' 'Their reply, framed by Becket, was: ' We are willing, saving our own order.'. . . The King, seeing what was comprehended in the reserva- tion, retired with evident marks of displeasure, deprived Becket of the government of Eye and Berkhamstead, and all the appointments which he held at the pleasure of the Crown, and uttered threats as to seizing the temporalities of all the bishops, since they would not acknowledge their allegiance to him as the head of the state The legate of Pope Alexander, dreading a breach with so powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, advised Becket to submit for the mo- ment; and he with his bretliren, retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised ' to observe the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future dispute, Henry resolved to fol- low up his victory by having these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned, re- duced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legis- lature, and to be specifically acknowledged by all the bishops. 'This was the origin of the famous 'Constitutions of Clarendon.'" Becket left the kingdom (1164). Several years later he made peace with Henry and returned to Canter- bury; but soon he again displeased the King, who cried in a rage, ' Who will rid me of this turbulent priest? ' Four knights who were pres- ent immediately went to Canterbury, where they slew the Archbishop in the cathedral (December 29, 1170). "The government tried to justify or palliate the murder. The Archbishop of York likened Thomas a Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance, as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation was issued, forbidding any one to speak of Thomas of Canterbury as a martyr : but the feelings of men were too strong to be checked by authority ; pieces of linen which had been dipped in his blood were preserved as relics ; from the time of his death it was believed that miracles were worked at his tomb ; thither flocked hundreds of thousands, in spite of the most violent threats of punishment; at the end of two years he was can- onised at Rome ; and, till the breaking out of the Reformation. St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and prayers, was the most distin- guished Saint in England. "— Lord Campbell, Livesofthe Lord Chancellors, ch. 3.— "What did Henry IL propose to do with a clerk who was accused of a crime ? . . . Without doing much violence to the text, it is possible to put two dif- ferent interpretations upon that famous clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with criminous clerks. . . . According to what seems to be the commonest opinion, we might comment upon tliis clause in some such words as these :— Offences of which a clerk may be ac- cused are of two kinds. They are temporal or they are ecclesiastical. Under the former head fall murder, robbery, larceny, rape, and the like; under the latter, incontinence, heresy, disobedi- ence to superiors, breach of rules relating to the conuuct of divine service, and so forth. _ If charged with an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his trial in the king's court ; his trial, his sentence, will be like that of a lay- man. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the other hand, he will be tried in the court Christian. The king reserves to his court the right to decide what offences are temporal, what ecclesiastical; also he asserts the right to send delegates to super- vise the proceedings of the spiritual tribunals. . . . Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author of this clause is not thinking of two dif- ferent classes of offences. The purely ecclesi- astical offences are not in debate. No one doubts that for these a man will be tried in and punished by the spiritual court. He is thinking of the grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now every such crime is a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach of canon law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's peace, but he also infringes the divine law, and — no canonist will doubt this — ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused of such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and he is to answer there — let us mark this word re- spondere — for what he ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for there ? The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he has answered, . . . then, without any trial, he is to be sent to the ecclesiastical court. In that court he will have to answer as an ordained clerk accused of homicide, and in that court there will be a trial (res ibi tractabitur). If the spiritual court convicts him it will degrade him, and thenceforth the church must no longer protect him. He will be brought back into the king's court, . . . and having been brought back, no longer a clerk but a mere layman, he will be sentenced (probably without any further trial) to the layman's punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this: accusation and plea in the temporal court; trial, conviction, degradation, in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the temporal court to the layman's punishment. This I be- lieve to be the meaning of the clause."— F. W. Maitland, Henry 11. and the Criminous Clerks {English Ristmeal Review, April, 1892), pp. 224- 326._Xhe Assize of Clarendon, sometimes con- fused with the Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved two years later. It laid down the principles on which the ad- ministration of justice was to be carried out, in twenty-two articles drawn up for the use of the judges. — Mrs. J. R. Green, Henry the Second, ch. 5-6.— "It may not be without -n- Btruction to remember that the Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in 827 ENGLAND, 1163-1170. Richard Cosur de Lion. ENGLAND, 1205-1213. opposing, and of which his death procured the suspension, are now incorporated in the English law, and are regarded, without a dissentient voice, as among tlie wisest and most necessary of English institutions; that the especial point for which he surrendered his life was not the in- dependence of the clergy from the encroach- ments of the Crown, but the personal and now forgotten question of the superiority of the see of Canterbury to the see of York." — A. P. Stan- ley, Historiail Memorials of Canterbury, p. 124. Also in : W. Stubbs, Const. Hist of Eng. , ch. 12, sect. 139-141.— The same, Select Charters, pt. 4. — J. C. Robertson, Becket. — J. A. Giles, Life and Letters of Tliomas A Becket. — R. H. Froude, Hist, of the Contest between ArcJtbisJiop Thomas a Becket and Henry II. (Remains, pt. 3, v. 2). — J. A. Froude, Life and Times of Thomas Becket. — C. H. Pearson, Hist, of England during the Early and Middle Ages, v. 1, ch. 29. — ^ See, also. Benefit OP Clergy, and Jury. Tri.'VL by. A. D. 1 189. — Accession of King Richard I. (called Coeur de Lion). A. D. 1189-1199. — Reign of Richard Coeur de Lion. — His Crusade and campaigns in France. — "The Third Crusade [see Crusades: A. D. 1188-1193], undertaken for the deliver- ance of Palestine from the disasters brought upon the Crusaders' Kingdom by Saladin, was the first to be popular in England. . . . Richard joined the Crusade in the very first year of his reign, and every portion of his subsequent career was concerned with its consequences. Neither in the time of William Rufus nor of Stephen had the First or Second Crusades found England sufficiently settled for such expeditions. . . . But the patronage of the Crusades was a heredi- tary distinction in the Angevin family now reign- ing in England : they had founded the kingdom of Palestine ; Henry IL himself had often pre- pared to set out; and Richard was confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to re- deem the family pledge. . . . Wholly inferior in statesmanlike qualities to his father as he was, the generosity, munificence, and easy confidence of his character made him an almost perfect rep- resentative of the chivalry of that age. He was scarcely at all in England, but his fine exploits both by land and sea have made him deservedly a favourite. The depreciation of him which is to be found in certain modern books must in all fairness be considered a little mawkish. A King who leaves behind him such an example of ap- parently reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous ill-treatment, and perse- verance in the face of extreme difliculties, shin- ing out as the head of the manhood of his day, far above the common race of kings and emper- ors,^ such a man leaves a heritage of example as well as glory, and incites posterity to noble deeds. His great moral fault was his conduct to Henry, and for this he was sufficiently punished ; but his parents must each bear their share of the blame. . . . The interest of English affairs dur- ing Richard's absence languishes under the ex- citement which attends his almost continuous campaigns. . . . Both on the Crusade and in France Richard was fighting the battle of the Plouse which the English had very deliberately placed upon its throne ; and if the war was kept oft its shores, if the troubles of Stephen's reign were not allowed to recur, the country had no right to complain of a taxation or a royal ransom which times of peace enabled it, after all, to bear tolerably well. . . . The great maritime position of the Plantagenets made these sovereigns take to the sea." — M. Burrows, Commentaries on the Hist, of England, bk. 1, ch. 18. — Richard "was a bad king ; his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration for his people. He was no Englishman. . . . His ambition was that of a mere warrior." — W. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of Eng., sect. 150 (v. 1). Also en: K. Norgate, England under the An- gerin Kings, v. 2, ch. 7-8. A. D. 1 199. — Accession of King John. A. D. 1205. — The loss of Normandy and its effects. — In 1303 Philip Augustus, king of France, summoned John of England, as Duke of Normandy (therefore the feudal vassal of the French crown) to appear for trial on certain grave charges before the august court of the Peers of France. John refused to obey the summons ; his French fiefs were declared forfeited, and the armies of the French king took possession of them (see France: A. D. 1180-1224). This proved to be a lasting separation of Normandy from England, — except as it was recovered moment- arily long afterwards in the conquests of Henry V. "The Norman barons had had no choice but between John and Philip. For the first time since the Conquest there was no competitor, son, brother, or more distant kinsman, for their allegiance. John could neither rule nor defend them. Bishops and barons alike welcomed or speedily accepted their new lord. The families that had estates on both sides of the Channel divided into two branches, each of which made terms for itself; or having balanced their inter- ests in the two kingdoms, threw in their lot with one or other, and renounced what they could not save. Almost immediately Normandy settles down into a quiet province of France. . . . For England the result of the separation was more important still. Even within the reign of John it became clear that the release of the barons from their connexion with the continent was all that was wanted to make them Englishmen. With the last vestiges of the Norman inherit- ances vanished the last idea of making England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men ^vho were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation. From the year 1203 the king stood before the English people face to face." — W. Stubbs, Constitutional Hist, of Eng., ch. 12, sect. 152.— See France: A. D. 1180-1334. A. D. 1205-1213. — King John's quarrel with the Pope and the Church. — On the death, in 1205, of Archbishop Hubert, of Canterbury, who had long been chief minister of the crown, a complicated quarrel over the appointment to the vacant see arose between the monks of the cathe- dral, the suffragan bishops of the province. King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pt>pe Innocent put forward as his candidate the after- wards famous Stephen Langton, secured his election in a somewhat irregular way (A. D. 1207), and consecrated him with his own hands. King John, bent on filling the primacy with a creature of his own, resisted the papal acticjn with more fury than discretion, and proceeded to open war with the whole Church. "The 828 ENGLAND, 1305-1213. King John and Magna Carta. ENGLAND. 1315. monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and wfien, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme that almost all the bishops fled ; the Bishops of Winchester, Durham, and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial body, being the only prelates left in England. The in- terdict was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the exception of baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden, while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconse- crated ground ; its effect was however weakened by the conduct of some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its operation, and continued their services. The king's anger knew no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the law ; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices, and lawless acts com- mitted at their expense met with no punishment. . . . Though acting thus violently, John showed the weakness of his character by continued com- munication with the Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church ; so much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come over to England, and, upon the continued ob- stinacy of the king. Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from the island . . . ; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its effect was great. ... In a state of nervous excitement, and mistrusting his nobles, the king himself perpetually moved to and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few da3'S in one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy. ... In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed, including ail the princes of the North of Europe ; Ferrand of Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho [John's Guelphic Saxon nephew, who was one of two contestants for the imperial crown in Germany], were all members of it, and it was chiefly organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of Boulogne. The chief enemy of these confederates was Philip of Prance ; and John thought he saw in this league the means of revenge against his old enemy. To complete the line of demarcation between the two parties. Innocent, who was greatly moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in England, declared John's crown forfeited, and Intrusted the carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were collected on both sides. Philip was already on the Channel, and John had assembled a large army on Barham- down, not far from Canterbury." But, at the last moment, when the French king was on the eve of embarking his forces for the invasion of England, John submitted himself abjectly to Pandulf, the legate of the Pope. He not only surrendered to all that he had contended against, but went further, to the most shameful extreme. "On the loth of May, at Dover, he formally re- signed the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf, and received them again as the Pope's feudatory." — J. P. Bright, Hist, of Em/. (Med.), v. 1, pp. 130-134. Also m: C. H. Pearson, Hint, of Stiff, during the Early and Middle Ages, v. 2, ch. 2.— E. F. Henderson, Select Hist. Doc's of the Middle Ages, bk. 4, no. 5. — See, also, BoDvufBS, Battle of. A. D. 1206-1230. — Attempts of John and Henry III. to recover Anjou and Maine. See Anjou: A. D. 1206-1443. A. D. 1215. — Magna Carta. — "It is to the victory of Bouvines that England owes her Great Charter [see Bouvines]. . . . John sailed for Poitou with the dream of a great victory which should lay Philip [of France] and the barons alike at his feet. He returned from his defeat to find the nobles no longer banded together in secret conspiracies, but openly united in a defin- ite claim of liberty and law. The author of this great change was the new Archbishop [Lang- ton] whom Innocent had set on the throne of Canterbury. ... In a private meeting of the barons at St. Paul's, he produced the Charter of Henry I. , and the enthusiasm with which it was welcomed showed the sagacity with which the Primate had chosen his ground for the coming struggle. All hope, however, liung on the for- tunes of the French campaign ; it was the victory at Bouvines that broke the spell of terror, and within a few days of the king's landing the bar- ons again met at St. Edmundsbury. ... At Christmas they presented themselves in arms be- fore the king and preferred their claim. The few months that followed showed John that he stood alone in the land. ... At Easter the barons again gathered in arms at Brackley and renewed their claim. ' Why do they not ask for my kingdom? ' cried John in a burst of passion ; but the whole country rose as one man at his refusal. London threw open her gates to the army of the barons, now organized under Robert Fitz-Walter, ' the marshal of the army of God and the holy Church.' The example of the capital was at once followed by Exeter and Lincoln ; promises of aid came from Scotland and Wales ; the north- ern nobles marched hastily to join their comrades in London. With seven horsemen in his train John found himself face to face with a nation in arms. . . . Nursing wrath in his heart the tyrant bowed to necessity, and summoned the barons to a conference at Runnymede. An island in the Thames between Staines and Windsor had been chosen as the place of conference : the king en- camped on one bank, while the barons covered the marshy flat, still known by the name of Runny- mede, on the other. Their delegates met in the island between them. . . . The Great Charter was discussed, agreed to, and signed in a single day [June 15, A. D. 1215]. One copy of it still remains in the British Museum, injured by age and fire, but with the royal seal still hanging from the brown, shriveled parchment." — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of the English Peojjle, ch. 3, sect. 3-3. — "As this was the first effort towards a legal government, so is it beyond comparison the most important event in our history, except that Revolution without which its benefits would have been rapidly annihilated. The constitution of England has indeed no single date from which its duration is to be reckoned. The institutions of positive law, the far more important changes which time has wrought in the order of society, during six hundred years subsequent to the Great Charter, have undoubtedly lessened its direct application to our present circumstances. But it is still the key-stone of English liberty. All that has since been obtained is little more than as confirmation or commentary. . . The es- sential clauses of Magna Charta are those which protect the personal "liberty and property of all 829 ENGLAND, 1215. Magna Carta. ENGLAND, 1215. freemen, by giving security from arbitrary im- prisonment and arbitrary spoliation. ' No free- man (says tlie 29th chapter of Henry IIL's charter, which, as the existing law, I quote in preference to tliat of John, the variations not be- ing very material) shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or e.xiled, or any other- wise destroyed ; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man, jus- tice or right.' It is obvious that these words, interpreted by any honest court of law, convey an ample security for the two main rights of civil society. " — H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, ch. 8, pt. 3. — " The Great Charter, although drawn up in the form of a royal grant, was really a treaty be- tween the king and his subjects. ... It is the collective people who really form the other high contracting party in the great capitulation, — the three estates of the realm, not, it is true, arranged in order according to their profession or rank, but not the less certainly combined in one national purpose, and securing by one bond the interests and rights of each other, severally and all to- gether. . . . The barons maintain and secure the right of the whole people as against them- selves as well as against their master. Clause by clause the rights of the commons are provided for as well as the rights of the nobles. . . . The knight is protected against the compulsory exac- tion of his services, and the horse and cart of the freeman against the irregular requisition even of the sheriff. . . . The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it has realised its own identity. . . . The whole of the consti- tutional history of England is little more than a commentary on Magna Carta. " — W. Stubbs, Constitutiomil Hist. ofEng., ch. 12, sett. 155. — The following is the text of Magna Carta: "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the sal- vation of our soul, and the souls of all our an- cestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our Realm, by advice of our ven- erable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canter- bury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church ; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin ; William, of London ; Peter, of Winches- ter ; Jocelin, of Bath and Glastonbury ; Hugh, of Lincoln; Walter, of Worcester ; William, of Cov- entry; Benedict, of Rochester — Bishops: of Mas- ter Paudulph, Sub-Deacon and Familiar of our Lord the Pope ; Brother Aymeric, Master of the Knights-Templars in England ; and of the noble Persons, William Marescall, Earl of Pembroke; William, Earl of Salisbury; William, Earl of Warren; William, Earl of Arundel; Alan de Galloway, Constaljle of Scotland; Warin Fitz- Gterald, Peter FitzHerbert, and Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poitou ; Hugh de Neville, Matthew FitzHerbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip of Albiney, Robert de Roppell, John JIareschal, John FitzHugh, and others, our liegemen, have, in the first place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter confirmed, for us and our heirs forever: — i. That the Church of England shall be free, and have her whole rights, and her liber- ties inviolable ; and we will have them so ob- served, that it may appear thence that the free- dom of elections, which is reckoned chief and indispensable to the English Church, and which we granted and confirmed by our Charter, and obtained the confirmation of the same from our Lord the Pojje Innocent III., before the discord between us and our barons, was granted of mere free will; which Charter we shall observe, and we do will it to be faithfully observed by our heirs for ever. 2. We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for us and for our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever: If any of our earls, or barons, or others, who hold of us in chief by military service, shall die, and at the time of his death his heir shall be of full age, and owe a re- lief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient relief — that is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl, for a whole earldom, by a hundred pounds ; the heir or heirs of a baron, for a whole barony, by a hundred pounds ; the heir or heirs of a knight, for a whole knight's fee, by a hundred shillings at most; and whoever oweth less shall give less, according to the ancient custom of fees, 3. But if the heir of anj' such shall be under age, and shall be in ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without relief and without fine. 4. The keeper of the land of such an heir being under age, shall take of the land of the heir none but reasonable issues, reasonable cus- toms, and reasonable services, and that without destruction and waste of his men and his goods ; and if we commit the custody of any such lands to the sheriff, or any other who is answerable to us for the issues of the land, and he shall make destruction and waste of the lauds which he hath in custody, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and dis- creet men of that fee, who shall answer for the issues to us, or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we sell or give to any one the cus- tody of any such lands, and he therein make de- struction or waste, he shall lose the same custody, which shall be committed to two lawful and dis- creet men of that fee, who shall in like manner answer to us as aforesaid. 5. But the keeper, so long as he shall have the custody of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land ; and shall deliver to the heir, when he comes of full age, his whole land, stocked with ploughs and carriages, accord- ing as the time of wainage shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonably bear. 6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, and so that before matrimony shall be contracted, those who are near in blood to the heir shall have notice. 7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her / marriage and inheritance ; nor shall she give any- thing for her dower, or her marriage, or her in- heritance, which her husband and she held at the day of his death; and she may remain in the mansion house of her husband forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned. 8. No widow shall be distrained to marry herself, so long as she has a mind to live without a husband; but yet she shall give se- curity that she will not marry without our assent. 830 ENGLAND, 1215. Magna Carta. ENGLAND, 1215. if she hold of us ; or ■without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she hold of another, 9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent for any debt so long as the chattels "of the debtor are sufficient to pay the debt ; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor has sufficient to pay the debt ; and if the principal debtor shall fail in the payment of the debt, not having wherewithal to pay it, then the sureties shall answer the debt ; and if they will they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until they shall be satisfied for the debt which they paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show himself acquitted thereof against the said sureties. 10. If anyone have borrowed anything of the Jews, more or less, and die before the debt be satisfied, there shall be no interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold ; and if the debt falls into our hands, we will only take the chattel mentioned in the deed. 11. And if any one shall die indebted to the Jews, bis wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt ; and if the deceased left children under age, they shall have necessaries provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased ; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, saving, however, the service due to the lords, and In like manner shall it be done touching debts due to others than the Jews. 12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the general council of our kingdom ; except for ransoming our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for marrying our eldest daugh- ter; and for these there shall be paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be concerning the aids of the City of London. 13. And the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water: furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs. 14. And for holding the general council of the king- dom concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages, we shall cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for a certain day, that is to say, forty days before their meeting at least, and to a certain place ; and in all letters of such summons we will declare the cause of such sum- mons. And summons being thus made, the busi- ness shall proceed on the day appointed, accord- ing to the advice of such as shall be present, although all that were summoned come not. 15. We will not for the future grant to any one that he may take aid of his own free tenants, unless to ransom his body, and to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and for this there shall be only paid a reasonable aid. 16. No man shall be distrained to perforin more service for a knight's fee, or other free tene- ment, than is due from thence. 17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be holden in some place certain. 18. Trials upon the Writs of Novel Disseisin, and of j\Iort d'an- cestor, and of Darrein Presentment, shall not be taken but in their proper counties, and after this manner : We, or if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciary, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who, with four knights of each county, chosen by the county, shall hold the said assizes in the county on the day, and at the place appointed. 19. And if any matters cannot be determined on the day appointed for holding the assizes in each county, so many of the knights and freeholders as have been at the assizes aforesaid shall stay to decide them as is necessary, according as there is more or less business. 26. A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but only accord- ing to the degree of the offence ; and for a great crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his contenement ; and after the same man- ner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise. And a villein shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our mere}-; and none of the aforesaid amerciaments shall be assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighbourhood. 21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, and after the degree of the offence. 22. No ecclesiastical person shall be amerced for his lay tenement, but according to the proportion of the others aforesaid, and not according to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice. 23. Neither a town nor any tenant shall be distrained to make bridges or embankments, unless that anciently and of right they are bound to do it. 24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other our bailiffs, shall hold "Pleas of the Crown." 25. All counties, hun- dreds, wapentakes, and trethings, shall stand at the old rents, without any increase, except in our demesne manors. 26. If any one holding of us a lay fee die, and the sheriff, or our bailiffs, show our letters patent of summons for debt which the dead man did owe to us, it shall be lawful for the sheriff or our bailiff to attach and register the chattels of the dead, found upon his lay fee, to the amount of the debt, by the view of lawful men, so as nothing be removed until our whole clear debt be paid ; and the rest shall be left to the executors to fulfil the testament of the dead ; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the use of the dead, sav- ing to his wife and children their reasonable shares. 27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest relations and friends, by view of the Church, saving to every one his debts which the deceased owed to him. 28. No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it, or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller. 29. No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for castle-guard, if he him- self will do it in his person, or by another able man, in case he cannot do it through any reason- able cause. And if we have carried or sent him into the army, he shall be free from such guard for the time he shall be in the army by our com- mand. 30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the assent of the said free- man. 31. Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the owner of the timber. 32. We will retain the lands of those convicted of felony only one year and a day, and then they shall be delivered to the lord of the fee. 33. All kydells (wears) for the time to come shall be put down in the rivers of Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the sea- 831 ENGLAND, 1315. Magna Carta. ENGLAND, 1315. coast. 34. The writ which is called prmcipe, for the future, shall not be miuie out to any one, of any tenement, whereby a freeman may lose his court. 35- There shall be one measure of wine and one of ale through our whole realm; and one measure of corn, that is to say, the London quarter ; and one breadth of dyed cloth, and rus- sets, and haberjeets, that is to say, two ells within the lists ; and it shall be of weights as it is of measures. 36. Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be granted freely, and not de- nied. 37. If any do hold of us by fee-farm, or by socage, or bj' burgage, and he hold also lands of any other by knight's service, we will not have the custody of the heir or land, which is holden of another man's fee by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage ; neither will we have the custody of the fee-farm, or socage, or burgage, unless knight's service was due to us out of the same fee-farm. We will not have the custody of an heir, nor of any land which he holds of another by knight's service, by reason of any petty serjeanty by which he holds of us, by the service of paying a Itnife, an arrow, or the like. 38. No bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his law upon his own bare saying, without credible witnesses to prove it. 39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. 40. We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man, either justice or right. 41. All merchants shall have safe and secure conduct, to go out of, and to come into England, and to stay there and to pass as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and allowed customs, with- out any unjust tolls; except in time of war, or when they are of any nation at war with us. And if there be found any such in our land, in the beginning of the war, they shall be attached, without damage to their bodies or goods, until it be known unto us, or our chief justiciary, how our merchants be treated in the nation at war with us; and if ours be safe there, the others shall be safe in our dominions. 42. It shall be larwful, for the time to come, for any one to go out of our kingdom, and return safely and se- curely by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us ; unless in time of war, by some short space, for the common benefit of the realm, except prisoners and outlaws, according to the law of the land, and people in war with us, and mer- chants who shall be treated as is above mentioned. 43. If any man hold of any escheat, as of the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which be in our hands, and are baronies, and die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would to the baron, if it were in the baron's hand; and we will hold it after the same manner as the baron held it. 44. Those men who dwell without the forest from hence- forth shall not come before our justiciaries of the forest, upon common summons, but such as are impleaded, or are sureties for any that are at- tached for something concerning the forest. 45. We will not make any justices, constables, sher- iffs, or bailiffs, but of such as Imow the law of the realm and mean duly to observe it. 46. All barons who have founded abbeys, which they hold by charter from the kings of England, or by ancient tenure, shall have the keeping of them, when vacant, as they ought to have. 47. All forests that have been made forests in our time shall forthwith be disforested ; and the same shall be done with the water-banks that have been fenced in by us in our time. 48. All evil cus- toms concerning forests, warrens, foresters, and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, water-banks and their keepers, shall forthwith be inquired into in each county, by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by creditable persons of the same county ; and within forty days after the said inquest be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored : so as we are first acquainted therewith, or our justiciary, if we should not be in England. 49. We will immediately give up all hostages and charters delivered unto us by our English subjects, as securities for their keeping the peace, and yielding us faithful service. 50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the rela- tions of Gerard de Atheyes, so that for the future they shall have no bailiwick in England ; we will also remove Engelard de Cygony, Andrew, Peter, and Gyon, from the Chancery ; Gyon de Cygony, Geoffrey de Martyn, and his brothers; Philip Mark, and his brothers, and his nephew, Geoffrey, and their whole retinue. 51. As soon as peace is restored, we will send out of the kingdom all foreign knights, cross-bowmen, and stipendiaries, who are come with horses and arms to the mol- estation of our people. 52. If any one has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without the law- ful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles, liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him ; and if any dispute arise upon this head, let the matter be decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for the preservation of the peace. And for all those things of which any person has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been dispossessed or deprived, either by our father King Henry, or our brother King Richard, and which we have in our hands, or are possessed by others, and we are bound to warrant and make good, we shall have a respite till the term usually allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about which there is a plea depend- ing, or whereof an inquest hath been made, by our order before we undertook the crusade ; but as soon as we return from our expedition, or if perchance we tarry at home and do not make our expedi- tion, we will immediately cause full justice to be administered therein. 53. The same respite we shall have, and in the same manner, about ad- ministering justice, disafforesting or letting con- tinue the forests, which Henry our father, and our brother Richard, have afforested; and the same concerning the wardship of the lands which are in another's fee, but the wardship of which we have hitherto had, by reason of a fee held of us by knight's service ; and for the abbeys founded in any other fee than our own, in which the lord of the fee says he has a right ; and when we re- turn from our expedition, or if we tarry at home, and do not make our expedition, we will immedi- ately do full justice to all the complainants in this behalf. 54. No man shall be taken or im- prisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband, 55. All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all amer- ciaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the decision of the five-and-twenty 832 ENGLAND, 1215. MagTia Carta. ENGLAND, 1215. barons hereafter mentioned for the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of them, to- gether with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom he shall think fit to invite ; and if he can- not be present, the business shall notwithstanding go on without him ; but so that if one or more of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons be plain- tiffs in the same cause, they shall be set aside as to what concerns this particular affair, and others be chosen in their room, out of the said five-and-twenty, and sworn by the rest to decide the matter. 56. If we have disseised or dis- possessed the Welsh of any lands, liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers, either in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them ; and if any dis- pute arise upon this head, the matter shall be determined in the Marches by the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, for tenements of the Marches according to the law of the Marches : the same shall the Welsh do to us and our sub- jects. 57. As for all those things of which a Welshman hath, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or deprived of by King Henry our father, or our brother King Richard, and wliich we either have in our hands or others are possessed of, and we are obliged to warrant it, we shall have a respite till the time generally allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about which a suit is depending, or whereof an inquest has been made by our order, before we undertook the crusade : but when we return, or if we stay at home without performing our ex- pedition, we will immediately do them full jus- tice, according to the laws of the Welsh and of the parts before mentioned. 58. We will with- out delay dismiss the son of Llewellin, and all the Welsh hostages, and release them from the engagements they have entered into with us for the preservation of the peace. 59. We will treat ■with AJe.xander, King of Scots, concerning the restoring his sisters and hostages, and his right and liberties, in the same form and manner as we shall do to the rest of our barons of England ; un- less by the charters which we have from his father, William, late King of Scots, it ought to be otherwise ; and this shall be left to the deter- mination of his peers in our court. 60. All the aforesaid customs and liberties, which we have granted to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to us, all people of our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their dependents. 61. And whereas, for the honour of God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these things aforesaid ; willing to render them firm and last- ing, we do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security, namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of the king- dom, whom they think convenient; who shall take care, with all their might, to hold and ob- serve, and cause to be observed, tne peace and liberties we have granted them, and by this our present Charter confirmed in this manner ; that is to say, that if we, our justiciary, our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall in any circumstance have failed in the performance of them towards any person, or shall have broken through any of 53 these articles of peace and security, and the offence be notified to four barons chosen out of the five-and-twenty before mentioned, the said four barons shall repair to us, or our justiciary, if we are out of the realm, and, laying open the grievance, shall petition to liave it redressed without delay ; and if it be not redressed by us, or if we should chance to be out of the realm, if it should not be redressed by our justiciary within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been notified to us, or to our justiciary (if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall lay the cause before the rest of the five-and- twenty barons ; and the said five-and-twenty bar- ons, together with the community of the whole kingdom, shall distrain and distress us in all the ways in which they shall be able, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other man- ner they can, till the grievance is redressed, ac- cording to their pleasure ; saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it is redressed, they shall be- have to us as before. And any person whatsoever in the kingdom may swear that he will obey the orders of the five-and-twenty barons aforesaid in the execution of the premises, and will distress us, jointly with them, to the utmost of his power ; and we give public and free liberty to any one that shall please to swear to this, and never vf ill hinder any person from taking the same oath. 62. As for all those of our subjects who will not, of their own accord, swear to join the five-and- twenty barons in distraining and distressing us, we will issue orders to make them take the same oath as aforesaid. And if any one of the five- and-twenty barons dies, or goes out of the king- dom, or is hindered any other way from carrying the things aforesaid into execution, the rest of the said five-and-twenty barons may choose an- other in his room, at their discretion, who shall be sworn in like manner as the rest. In all things that are committed to the execution of these five- and-twenty barons, if, when they are all assem- bled together, they should happen to disagree about any matter, and some of them, when sum- moned, will not or cannot comCj whatever is agreed upon, or enjoined, by the major part of those that are present shall be reputed as firm and valid as if all the five-and-twenty bad given their consent ; and the aforesaid five-and-twenty shall swear that all the premises they shall faith- fully observe, and cause with all their power to be observed. And we will procure nothing from any one, by ourselves nor by another, whereby any of these concessions and liberties may be re- voked or lessened ; and if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be null and void; neither will we ever make use of it either by ourselves or any other. And all the ill-will, in- dignations, and rancours that have arisen be- tween us and our subjects, of the clergy and laity, from the first breaking out of the dissen- sions between us, we do fully remit and forgive : moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said dissensions, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace and tran- quillity, we hereby entirely remit to all, both clergy and laity, and as far as in us lies do fully forgive. We have, moreover, caused to be made for them the letters patent testimonial of Stephen, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, Lord Archbishop of Dublin, and the bishops aforesaid, as also of Master Pandulph, for the security and 833 ENGLAND, 1315. The Barons' War. ENGLAND, 1316-1274. concessions aforesaid. 63. Wherefore we ■will and firmly enjoin, that the Church of England lu' free, and that all men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, truly and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly to themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and places, for ever, as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all the things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without evil subtilty. Given under our hand, in the presence of the witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called Runingmede,between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June, in the 17th year of our reign." — W. Stubbs, Select Charters, pt. 5.- — Old South Leaflets, Oeneral Series, no. 5. Also in: E. F. Henderson, Select Hist. Doc's of the Middle Ages, bk. 1, no. 7. — C. H. Pearson, Ilist. of Eiig. dining the Early and Middle Ages, r. 2, ch. 3. A. D. 1216-1274. — Character and reign of Henry III. — The Barons' War. — Simon de Montfort and the evolution of the English Par- liament. — King John died October 17,1316. "His legitimate successor was a child of nine years of age. For the first time since the Conquest the personal government was in the hands of a minor. In that stormy time the great Earl of Pembroke undertook the government, as Protector. ... At the Council of Bristol, with general approbation and even with that of the papal legate, Magna Charta was confirmed, though with the omission of certain articles. . . . After some degree of tranquillity had been restored, a second confirma- tion of the Great Charter took place in the autumn of 1317, with the omission of the clauses referring to the estates, but with the grant of a new charta de foresta, introducing a vigorous administration of the forest laws. In 9 Henry III. JIagna Charta was again confirmed, and this is the form in which it afterwards took its place among the stat- utes of the realm. Two years later, Henry III. personally assumes the reins of government at the Parliament of Oxford (1327), and begins his rule without confirming the two charters. At first the tutorial government still continues, which had meanwhile, even after the death of the great Earl of Pembroke (1219), remained in a fairly orderly condition. The first epoch of sixteen years of this reign must therefore be regarded purely as a government by the nobility imder the name of Henry III. The regency had succeeded in remov- ing the dominant influence of the Roman Curia by the recall of the papal legate, Pandulf, to Rome (1331), and in getting rid of the dangerous foreign mercenary soldierj' (1334). . . . With the dis- graceful dismissal of the chief justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, there begins a second epoch of a per- sonal rule of Henry III. (1333-1353), which for twenty continuous years, presents the picture of a confused and undecided struggle between the king and his foreign favourites and personal ad- herents on the one side, and the great barons, and with tliem soon the prelates, on the other. . . . In 31 Henry III. the King finds himself, in con- sequence of pressing money embarrassments, again compelled to make a solemn confirmation of the charter, in which once more the clauses re- lating to the estates are omitted. Shortly after- wards, as had happened just one hundred years previously in France, the name ' parliamentum ' occurs for the first time (Chron. Dunst., 1344; Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the as- sembly which originated the Magna Charta. . . . The name 'parliament,' now occurs more fre- quently, but does not supplant the more definite terms concilium, colloquium, etc. In the mean- while the relations with the Continent became complicated, in consequence of the family con- nections of the mother and wife of the King, and the greed of the papal envoys. . . . From the year 1344 onwards, neither a chief justice nor a chancellor, nor even a treasurer, is appointed, but the administration of the country is conducted at the Court by the clerks of the offices." — R. Gneist, Hist, of t!w English Const.. i>. 1, pp. 313-321.— ' ' Nothing is so hard to realise as chaos ; and noth- ing nearer to chaos can be conceived than the gov- ernment of Henry III. Henry was, like all the Plantagenets, clever ; like very few of them, he was devout ; and if the power of conceiving a great policy would constitute a great King, he would certainly have been one. ... He aimed at mak- ing the Crown virtually independent of the barons. . . . HisconnexiouwithLouis IX., whose brother- in-law he became, was certainly a misfortune to him. In France the royal power had during the last fifty years been steadily on the advance ; in England it had as steadily receded ; and Henry was ever hearing from the other side of the Chan- nel maxims of government and ideas of royal au- thority which were utterly inapplicable to the actual state of his own kingdom. This, like a premature Stuart, Henry was incapable of per- ceiving ; a King he was, and a King he would be, in his own sense of the word. It is evident that with such a task before him, he needed for the most shadowy chance of success, an iron strength of will, singular self-control, great forethought and care in collecting and husbanding his re- sources, a rare talent for administration, the sa- gacity to choose and the self-reliance to trust his counsellors. And not one of these various quali- ties did Henry possess. . . . Henry had imbibed from the events and the tutors of his early child- hood two maxims of state, and two alone : to trust Rome, and to distrust the barons of England. . . . He filled the placesof trust and power about himself with aliens, to whom the maintenance of Papal influence was like an instinct of self-pre- servation. Thus were definitely formed the two great parties out of whose antagonism the War of the Barons arose, under whose influence the re- lations between the crown and people of England were remodelled, and out of whose enduring con- flict rose, indirectly, the political principles which contributed so largely to bring about the Re- formation of the English Church. The few years which followed the fall of Hubert de Burgh were the heyday of Papal triumph. j\jid no triumph could have been worse used. . . . Thus was the whole country lying a prey to the ecclesiastical aliens maintained by the Pope, and to the lay aliens maintained by the King, . . . when Simon de Montfort became . . . inseparably intermixed with the course of our history. ... In the year 1358 opened the first act of the great drama which has made the name of Simon de Mont- fort immortal. . . . The Barons of England, at Leicester's suggestion, liad leagued for the defence of their rights. Tliey appeared armed at the Great Council. . . . They required as the condition of their assistance that the general 834 ENGLAND, 1316-1374. Simon de Monffort. ENGLAND, 1316-1274. reformation of the realm should be entrusted to a Commission of twenty-four members, half to be chosen by tlie crown, and half by tliem- selves. For the election of this body, prima- rily, and for a more explicit statement of griev- ances, the Great Council was to meet again at Oxford on the 11th of June, 1358. When the Barons came, tliey appeared at the head of thc-ir retainers. The invasion of the Welsh was the plea ; but the real danger was nearer home. They seized on tlie Cinque Ports ; the unrenewed truce with France was the excuse ; they remembered too vividly King John and his foreign mercena- ries. They then presented their petition. This was directed to the redress of various abuses. ... To each and every clause the King gave his inevitable assent. One more remarkable encroach- ment was made upon the royal prerogative ; the election in Parliament of a chief justiciar. . . . The chief justiciar was the first officer of the Crown. He was not a mere chief justice, after the fashion of the present day, but the representa- tive of tlie Crown in its high character of the fountain of justice. . . . But the point upon which the barons laid the greatest stress, from the beginning to the end of their struggle, was the question of the employment of aliens. That the strongest castles and the fairest lands of England should be in the hands of foreigners, was an in- sult to the national spirit which no free people could fail to resent. . . . England for the Eng- lish, the great war cry of the barons, went home to the heart of the humblest. . . . The great question of the constitution of Parliament was not heard at Oxford ; it emerged into importance when the struggle grew fiercer, and the barons found it necessary to gather allies round them. . . . One other measure completed the programme of the barons ; namely, the appointment, already re- ferred to, of a committee of twenty-four. . . . It amounted to placing the crown under the con- trol of a temporary Council of Regency [see Ox- ford, Provisions op]. . . . Part of the barons' work was simple enough. The justiciar was named, and the committee of twenty-four. To expel the foreigners was less easy. Simon de Montfort, himself an alien by birth, resigned the two castles which he held, and called upon the rest to follow. They simply refused. . . . But the barons were in arras, and prepared to use them. The aliens, with their few English sup- porters, fled to Winchester, where the castle was in the hands of the foreign bishop Aymer. They were besieged, brought to terms, and exiled. The barons were now masters of the situation. . . . Among the prerogatives of the crown which passed to the Oxford Commission not the least valuable, for the hold which it gave on tlie gen- eral government of the country, was the right to nominate the sheriffs. In 1361 the King, who had procured a Papal bull to abrogate the Pro- visions of O.xford, and an army of mercenaries to give the bull effect, proceeded to expel the sheriffs who had been placed in office by the barons. The reply of the barons was most memo- rable ; it was a direct appeal to the order below their own. They summoned three knights elected from each county in England to meet them at St. Albans to discuss the state of the realm. It was clear that the day of the House of Commons could not be far distant, when at such a crisis an appeal to the knights of the shire could be made, and evidently made with success. For a moment. in this great move, the whole strength of the barons was united ; but differences soon returned, and against divided counsels the crown steadily prevailed. In June, 1262, we find peace restored. The more moderate of the barons had acquiesced in the terms offered by Henry; Montfort, who refused them, was abroad in voluntary exile. . . . Suddenly, in July, the Earl of Gloucester died, and the sole leadership of the barons passed into the hands of Montfort. With this critical event opens the last act in the career of the great Earl. In October he returns privately to England. The whole winter is passed in the patient reorganising of the party, and the preparation for a decisive struggle. Montfort, fervent, eloquent, and de- voted, swayed with despotic influence the hearts of the younger nobles (and few in those days lived to be grey), and taught them to feel that the Pro- visions of Oxford were to them what tlie Great Charter had been to their fathers. They were drawn together with an unanimity unknown be- fore. . . . They demanded the restoration of the Great Provisions. The King refused, and in Maj', 1363, the barons appealed to arms. . . . Henry, with a reluctant hand, subscribed once more to the Provisions of Oxford, with a saving clause, however, that they should be revised in the coming Parliament. On the 9tli of September, accord- ingly. Parliament was assembled. . . . The King and the barons agreed to submit their differences to the arbitration of Louis of France. . . . Louis IX. had done more than any one king of France to enlarge the royal prerogative ; and Louis was the brother-in-law of Henry. His award, given at Amiens on the 23d of January, 1364, was, as we should have expected, absolutely in favour of the King. The whole Provisions of Oxford were, in his view, an invasion of the royal power. . . . The barons were astounded. . . . They at once said that the question of the employment of aliens was never meant to be included. . . . The appeal was made once again to the sword. Success for a moment inclined to the royal side, but it was only for a moment ; and on the memora- ble field of Lewes the genius of Leicester pre- vailed. . . . With tlie two kings of England and of the Romans prisoners in his hands, Montfort dictated the terms of the so-called Mise of Lewes. . . . Subject to the approval of Parliament, all differences were to be submitted once more to French arbitration. . . . On the 33d of June the Parliament met. It was no longer a Great Coun- cil, after the fashion of previous assemblies: it included four knights, elected by each English county. This Parliament gave such sanction as it was able to the exceptional authority of Mont- fort, and ordered that until the proposed arbitra- tion could be carried out, the King's council should consist of nine persons, to be named by the Bishop of Chichester, and the Earls of Gloucester and Leicester. The effect was to give Simon for the time despotic power. . . . It was at length agreed that all questions whatever, the employment of aliens alone excepted, should be referred to the Bishop of London, the justiciar Hugh le Despen- ser, Charlesof Anjou, andthe Abbotof Bee. If on any point they could not agree, the Archbishop of Rouen was to act as referee. ... It was . . . not simply the expedient of a revolutionary chief in difficulties, but the expression of a settled and matured policy, when, in December 1364, [Mont- fort] issued in the King's name the ever-memora- ble writs which summoned the first complete Par 835 ENGLAND, 1216-1274. Edivard I. ENGLAND, 1275-1S95. Hament which ever met in England. The earls, barons, and bishops received their summons as of course ; and with them the deans of cathedral churches, an unprecedented number of abbots and priors, two knights from every shire, and two citizens or burgesses from every city or borough in England. Of their proceedings we know but little ; but they appear to have appointed Simon de Montfort to the office of Justiciar of England, and to have thus made him in rank, what he had before been in power, the first subject in the realm. . . . Montfort . . . had now gone so far, he had exercised such extraordinary powers, he had done so many things which could never really be pardoned, that perhaps bis only chance of safety lay in the possession of some such office as this. It is certain, moreover, that something which passed in this Parliament, or almost exactly at the time of its meeting, did cause deep oifence to a considerable section of the barons. . . . Diffi- culties were visibly gathering thicker around him, and he was evidently conscious that disaffection was spreading fast. . . . Negociations went for- ward, not very smoothly, for the release of Prince Edward. They were terminated in May by his escape. It was the signal for a royalist rising. Edward took the command of the Welsli border ; before the middle of June he had made the bor- der his own. On the 29th Gloucester opened its gates to him. He had many secret friends. He pushed fearlessly eastward, and surprised the gar- rison of Kenilworth, commanded by Simon, the Earl's second son. The Earl himself lay at Eves- ham, awaiting the troops which his son was to bring up from Kenilworth. . . . Ou the fatal field of Evesham, fighting side by side to the last, fell the Earl himself, his eldest son Henry, De- spenser the late Justiciar, Lord Basset of Dray- ton, one of his firmest friends, and a host of minor name. With them, to all appearance, fell the cause for which they had fought." — Simon de Montfort (Quarterly Eev., Jan., 1866). — See Parliament, The English : Early Stages of ITS Evolution. — "Important as this assembly [the Parliament of 1264] is in the history of the constitution, it was not primarily and essentially a constitutional assembly. It was not a gene- ral convention of the tenants in chief or of the three estates, but a parliamentary assembly of the supporters of the existing government." — W. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 14, sect. 177 (e. 2). Also in : The same, Tlie Early Plantagenets. — G. W. Prothero, Life of Simon de Montfort, ch. 11-12.— H. Blaauw, The Barons' War.^Q. H. Pearson, England, Early and Middle Ages, v. 2. A. D. 1271. — Crusade of Prince Edvyard. See Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271. A. D. 1272. — Accession of King Edward I. A. D. 1275-1295. — Development of Parlia- mentary representation under Edward I. — " Happilj', Earl Simon [de Montfort] found a successor, and more than a successor, in the king's [Henry III. 's] son. . . . Edward I. stood on the vantage ground of the throne. . . . He could do that easily and without effort wliich Simon could only do laboriously, and with the certainty of rousing opposition. Especially was this the case with the encouragement given by the two men to the growing aspirations after parliamentary representation. Earl Simon's as- semblies were instruments of warfare. Edward's assemblies were invitations to peace. . . . Barons and prelates, knights and townsmen, came to- gether only to support a king who took the initiative so wisely, and who, knowing what was best for all, sought the good of his kingdom without thought of his own ease. Yet even so, Edward was too prudent at once to gather to- gether such a body as that which Earl Simon had planned. He summoned, indeed, all the constituent parts of Simon's parliament, but he seldom summoned them to meet in one place or at one time. Sometimes the barons and [irelates met apart from the townsmen or the knights, sometimes one or the other class met entirely alone. ... In this way, during the first twenty years of Edward's reign, the nation rapidly grew in that consciousness of national unity which would one day transfer the function of regulation from the crown to the representatives of the people." — S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Int. to the Study of Eng. Hist., ch. 4, sect. 17.— " In 1264 Simon de Montfort had called up from both shires and boroughs representatives to aid him in the new work of government. That part of Earl Simon's work had not been lasting. The task was left for Edward I. to be advanced by gradual safe steps, but to be thoroughly com- pleted, as a part of a definite and orderly arrange- ment, according to which the English parliament was to be the perfect representation of the Three Estates of the Realm, assembled for purposes of taxation, legislation and united political action. . . . Edward's first parliament, in 1275, enabled him to pass a great statute of legal reform, called the Statute of Westminster the First, and to exact the new custom on wool ; another assem- bly, the same year, granted him a fifteenth. . . . There is no evidence that the commons of either town or county were represented. ... In 1283, when the expenses of the Welsh war were be- coming heavy, Edwaixl again tried the plan of obtaining money from the towns and counties by separate negotiation ; but as that did not provide him with funds sufficient for his purpose, he called together, early in 1283, two great assem- blies, one at York and another at Northampton, in which four knights from each shire and four members from each city and borough were or- dered to attend; the cathedral and conventual clergy also of the two provinces were represented at the same places by their elected proctors. At these assemblies there was no attendance of the barons; they were with the king in Wales; but the commons made a grant of one-thirtieth on the understanding that the lords should do the same. Another assembly was held at Slire wsbury tlie same year, 1283, to witness the trial of David of Wales ; to this the bishops and clergy were not called, but twenty towns and all the counties were ordered to send representatives. Anotlier step was taken in 1290: knights of the shire were again summoned ; but still much remained to be done before a perfect parliament was con- stituted. Counsel was wanted for legislation, consent was wanted for taxation. The lords were summoned in May, and did their work in June and July, granting a feudal aid and passing the statute 'Quia Emptores,' but the knights only came to vote or to promise a tax, after a law had been passed ; and the towns were again taxed by special commissions. In 1294, . . . under the alarm of war with France, an alarm which led Edward into several breaches of con- stitutional law, he went still further, assembling the clergy by their representatives in August, 836 ENGLAND. 1275-1295. Parliamentary Representation. ENGLAND, 1375-1295. and the shires by their representative knights in October. The next year, 1295, witnessed the first summoas of a perfect and model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops, deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors ; tlie barons summoned severally in person by tlie lying's special writ, and the commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing them to send up two elected Ivnights from eacli shire, two elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from each borough. The writ by which the prelates were called to this parliament contained a famous sentence taken from the Roman law, ' That whicli touches all should be approved by all,' a ma.xim jvliich might serve as a motto for Edward's constitutional scheme, how- ever slowly it grew upon him, now permanently and consistently completed." — W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, cli. 10. — "Comparing the history of the following ages with that of the past, we can scarcely doubt that Edward had a definite idea of government before his eyes, or that that idea was successful because it approved itself to the genius and grew out of the habits of the people. Edward saw, in fact, what the nation was capable of, and adapted his constitu- tional reforms to that capacity. But althougli we may not refuse him the credit of design, it may still be questioned whether the design was altogether voluntary, whether it was not forced upon him by circumstances and developed by a series of careful experiments. . . . The design, as interpreted by the result, was tlie creation of a national parliament, composed of the tliree estates. . . . This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the result of compulsion, but tlie con- summation of a growing policy. . . . But the close union of 1295 was followed by tlie compul- sion of 1297: out of tlie organic completeness of the constitution sprang the power of resistance, and out of the resistance the victory of the prin- ciples, wliich Edward might guide, but which he failed to coerce. " — W. Stubbs, Constitutional Hist, of Eng., ch. 15, sect. 244 and ch. 14, sect. 180-182.— The same. Select Charters, pt. 7.— "The 13th century was above all tilings the age of the lawyer and tlie legislator. The revived study of Roman law had been one of the greatest results of the intellectual renaissance of the twelfth century. The enormous growth of the universities in the early part of the thirteenth century was in no small measure due to the zeal, ardour and success of their legal faculties. Prom Bologna there flowed all over Europe a great impulse towards the systematic and scientific study of the Civil Law of Rome. . . . The northern lawyers were inspired by their emula- tion of the civilians and canonists to look at the rude chaos of feudal custom with more critical eyes. They sought to give it more system and method, to elicit its leading principles, and to co- ordinate its clashing rules into a harmonious body of doctrine worthy to be put side by side with the more pretentious edifices of the Civil and Canon Law. In this spirit Henry de Brac- ton wrote the first systematic exposition of Eng- lish law in the reign of Henry III. The judges and lawyers of the reign of Edward sought to put the principles of Bracton into practice. Ed- ward himself strove with no small success to carry on the same great work by new legislation. . . . His well-known title of the ' English Jus- tinian' is not so absurd as it appears at first sight. He did not merely resemble Justinian in being a great legislator. Like the famous codifier of the Roman law, Edward stood at the end of a long period of legal development, and sought to arrange and systematise what had gone before him. Some of his great laws arc almost in form attempts at the systematic codification of various branches of feudal custom. . . . Edward was greedy for power, and a constant object of his legislation was the exaltation of the royal pre- rogative. But he nearly always took a broad and comprehensive view of his authority, and thoroughly grasped the truth that the best in- terests of king and kingdom were identical. He wished to rule the state, but was willing to take his subjects into partnership with him, if they in return recognised his royal rights. . . . The same principles which influenced Edward as a law- giver stand out clearly in his relations to every class of his subjects. ... It was the greatest work of Edward's life to make a permanent and ordinarj' part of the machinery of English gov- ernment, what in his father's time had been but the temporary expedient of a needy taxgatherer or the last despairing effort of a revolutionary partisan. Edward I. is — so much as one man can be — the creator of the historical English constitution. It is true that the materials were ready to his hand. But before he came to the throne the parts of the constitution, though al- ready roughly worked out, were ill-defined and ill-understood. Before his death the national council was no longer regarded as complete un- less it contained a systematic representation of the three estates. All over Europe the thirteenth century saw the establishment of a system of estates. The various classes of the community, which had a separate social status and a common political interest, became organised communities, and sent their representatives to swell the council of the nation. By Edward's time there had already grown up in England some rough an- ticipation of the three estates of later history. ... It was with no intention of diminishing his power, but rather with the object of enlarging it, that Edward called the nation into some sort of partnership with him. The special clue to this aspect of his policy is his constant financial embarrassment. He found that he could get larger and more cheerful subsidies if he laid his financial condition before the representatives of his people. . . . The really important thing was that Edward, like Montfort, brought shire and borough representatives together in a single es- tate, and so taught the country gentry, the lesser landowners, who, in a time when direct partici- pation in politics was impossible for a lower class, were the real constituencies of the shire members, to look upon their interests as more in common with the traders of lower social status than with the greater landlords with whom in most continental countries the lesser gentry were forced to associate their lot. The result strength- ened the union of classes, prevented the growth of the abnormally numerous privileged nobility of most foreign countries, and broadened and deepened the main current of the national life." — T. F. Tout, Edward th4; First, ch. 7-8.— "There was nothing in England which answered to the 'third estate ' in France — a class, that is to say, both isolated and close, composed exclusively of townspeople, enjoying no commerce with the rural population (except such as consisted in the 837 ENGLAND, 1275-1295. Papal pretensions resisted. ENGLAND, 1306-1393. reception of fugitives), and at once detesting and dreading the nobility by whom it was surrounded. In England the contrary was the case. The townsfolk and the other classes in each county were thrown together upon numberless occasions ; a long period of common activity created a cor- dial understanding between the burghers on the one hand and their neighbours the knights and landowners on the other, and finally prepared the way for the fusion of the two classes." — £. Boutmy, The English Constitution, ch. 3. A. D. 1279. — The Statute of Mortmain. — ' ' For many years past, the great danger to the balance of power appeared to come from the regular clergy, who, favoured by the success of the mendicant orders, were adding house to house and field to field. Never dying out like families, and rarely losing by forfeitures, the monasteries might well nigh calculate the time, when all the soil of England should be their own. . . . Ac- cordingly, one of the first acts of the barons under Henry III. had been to enact, that no fees should be aliened to religious persons or corpo- rations. Edward re-enacted and strengthened this by various provisions in the famous Statute of Mortmain. The fee illegally aliened was now to be forfeited to the chief lord under the King ; and if, by collusion or neglect, the lord omitted to claim his right, the crown might enter upon it. Never was statute more unpopular with the class at whom it was aimed, more ceaselessly eluded, or more effectual." — C. II. Pearson, Hist, of Enrihnid during tlie Early and Middle Ages, 1). 3, ch. 9. A. D. 1282-1284.— Subjugation of Wales. See Wales; A. D. 1283-1284. A. D. 1290-1305.— Conquest of Scotland by Edward I. See Scotland : A. D. 1290-1305. A. D. 1297. — TheConfirmatio Chartarum of Edward I. — "It was long before the King would surrender the right of taking talliages without a parliamentary grant. In order to carry on his extensive wars he was in constant need of large sums ot money, which he raised by arbitrary exactions from all classes of his sub- jects, lay and clerical." The disputes and the resistance to which these exactions gave rise grew violent in 1397, and Edward was at length persuaded to assent to what was called the "Con- firmatio Chartarum " — confirmation of the Great Charter and the Charter of Forests. "The Con- firmatio Chartarum. which, although a statute, is drawn up in the form of a charter, was passed on the 10th of October, 1397, in a Parliament at which knights of the shire attended as repre- sentatives of the Commons, as well as the la_y and clerical baronage. . . . The Confirmatio Chartarum was not merely a re-issue of Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forest, . . . but the enactment of a series of new provisions. . . . By the 5th section of this statute the King ex- pressly renounced as precedents the aids, tasks, and prises before taken. . . . The exclusive right of Parliament to impose taxation, though often infringed by the illegal exercise of prerogative, became from this time an axiom of the Constitu- tion." — T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Consti- tution/il Histori/, ch.7. 14th Century.— The founding of manufac- tures and trade. See Flanders : A. D. 1333- 1837, and TjiA')n, Medi.eval. A. D. 1306-1303. — Resistance to the Pope. —"For one hundred and fifty years succeeding 838 the Conquest, the right of nominating the arch- bishops, bishops, and mitred abbots had been claimed and e.\ercised by the king. This right had been specially confirmed by the Constitu- tions of Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant sees should belong to the Crown. But .lohn admitted all the Papal claims, surrendering even his kingdom to the Pope, and receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See. By the Great Charter the Church recovered its liber- ties; the right of free election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters and the re- ligious houses. Every election was, however, subject to the approval of the Pope, who also claimed a right of veto on institutions to the smaller church benefices. . . . Under Henry III. the power thus vested in the Pope and foreign superiors of the monastic orders was greatly abused, and soon degenerated into a mere chan- nel for draining money into the Roman excheq- uer. Edward 1. firmly withstood the exactions of the Pope, and reasserted the independence of both Church and Crown. ... In the reign of the great Edward began a series of statutes passed to check the aggressions of the Pope and restore the independence of the national church. The first of the series was passed in 1306-7. . . . This statute was confirmed under Edward III. in the 4th, and again in the 5th year of his reign ; and in the 25th of his reign [A. D. 1351], roused ' by the grievous complaints of all the commons of his realm,' the King and Parliament passed the famous Statute of Provisors, aimed directly at the Pope, and emphatically forbidding his nominations to English benefices. . . . Three years afterwards it was found necessary to pass a statute forbidding citations to the court of Home — [the prelude to the Statute of Praemu- nire, described below]. ... In 1389, there was an expectation that the Pope was about to at- tempt to enforce his claims, by excommunicating those who rejected them. . . . The Parliament at once passed a highly penal statute. . . . Mat- ters were shortly afterwards brought to a crisis by Boniface IX., wlio after declaring the stat- utes enacted by the English Parliament null and void, granted to an Italian cardinal a prebendal stall at Wells, to which the king had already presented. Cross suits were at once instituted by the two claimants in the Papal and English courts. A decision was given by the latter, in favour of the king's nominee, and the bishops, having agreed to support the Crown, were forth- with excommunicated by the Pope. The Com- mons were now roused to the highest pitch of indignation," — -and the final great Statute of Praemunire was passed, A. D. 1393. "The firm and resolute attitude assumed by the country caused Boniface to yield; 'and for the moment,' observes Mr. Froude, 'and indeed forever under this especial form, the wave of papal encroach- ment was rolled back.'" — T. P. 'Taswell-Lang- mead, Eng. Const. Hist., ch. 11.— "The great Statute of Provisors, passed in 1351, was a very solemn expression of the National determination not to give way to the pope's usurpation of pat- ronage. . . . All persons procuring or accepting papal promotions were to be arrested In 1352 the purchasers of Provisions were declared outlaws; in 1365 another act repeated the prohi- bitions and penalties ; and in 1390 the parliament of Richard II. rehearsed and confirmed the stat- ute. By this act, forfeiture and banishment were ENGLAND, iaa6-ia93. Edward IIT. and his ivars. ENGLAND, 1333-1380. decreed against future transgressors. " The Stat- ute of Praemunire as enacted finally in 1393, pro- vided that "all persons procuring in the court of Rome or elsewhere such translations, processes, sentences of excommunication, bulls, instru- ments or other things which touch the king, his crown, regality or realm, should suffer the pen- alties of prajmunire" — which included imprison- ment and forfeiture of goods. ' ' The name prae- munire which marks this form of legislation is taken from the opening word of the writ by which the sheriff is charged to summon tlie de- linquent." — W. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of Emj., ch. 19, sect. 715-71G. A. D. 1307. — Accession of King Edward IL A. D. 1310-1311. — The Ordainers. — " At the parliament which met in JIarch 1310 [reign of Edward IL] a new scheme of reform was pro- mulgated, which was framed on the model of that of 1258 and the Provisions of Oxford. It was determined that the task of regulating the affairs of the realm and of the king's household should be committed to an elected body of twenty- one members, or Ordainers, the chief of whom was Archbishop Winchelsey. . . . The Ordain- ers were empowered to remain in office until Michaelmas 1311, and to make ordinances for the good of the realm, agreeable to the tenour of the king's coronation oath. The w-hole administra- tion of the kingdom thus passed into their hands. . . . The Ordainers immediately on their appoint- ment issued six articles directing the observance of the charters, the careful collection of the cus- toms, and the arrest of the foreign merchants; but the great body of the ordinances was re- served for the parliament which met in August 1311. The famous document or statute known as the Ordinances of 1311 contained forty- one clauses, all aimed at existing abuses." — W. Stubbs. Jlie Early PlantcKjenets, ch. 13. A. D. 1314-1328. — Bannockburn and the re- covery of Scottish independence. See Scot- land: A. D. 1314; 1314-1328. A. D. 1327. — Accession of King Edward III. A. D. 1328. — The Peace of Northampton with Scotland. See Scotland; A. D. 1328. A. D. 1328-1360. — The pretensions and wars of Edward IIL in France. See France; A. D. 1328-1339; and 1337-1360. A. D. 1332-1370. — The wars of Edward III. with Scotland. See Scotland: A. D. 1333- 1333, and 1333-1370. A. D. 1333-1380.— The effects of the war in France. — "A period of great wars is generally favourable to the growth of a nobility. Men who equipped large bodies of troops for the Scotch or French wars, or who had served with distinction in them, naturally had a claim for re- ward at the hands of their sovereign. . . . The 13th century had broken up estates all over Eng- land and multiplied families of the upper class; the 14tli century was consolidating properties again, and establishing a broad division between a few powerful nobles and the mass of tlie com- munity. But if the gentry, as an order, lost a little in relative importance by the formation of a class of great nobles, more distinct than had existed before, the middle classes of England, its merchants and yeomen, gained very much in im- portance by the war. Under the firm rule of the ' King of the Sea,' as his subjects lovingly called Edward III., our commerce expanded. Englishmen rose to an equality with the mer- chants of the Hanse Towns, the Genoese, or the Lombards, and England for a time overflowed with treasure. The first period of war, ending with the capture of Calais, secured our coasts; the second, terminated by the peace of Bretigny, brought the plunder of half France into the English markets ; and even when Edward's reign had closed on defeat and bankruptcy, and our own shores were ravaged by hostile fleets, it was still possible for private adventurers to retaliate invasion upon the enemy. . . . The romance of foreign conquest, of fortunes lightly gained and lightly lost, influenced English enterprise for many years to come. . . . The change to the lower orders during the reign arose rather from the frequent pestilences, which reduced the num- ber of working men and made labour valu- able, than from any immediate participation in the war. In fact, English serfs, as a rule, did not serve in Edward's armies. They could not be men-at-arms or archers for want of training and equipment ; and for the work of light-armed ti-oops and foragers, the Irish and Welsh seem to have been preferred. The opportunity of the serfs came with the Black Death, while districts were depopulated, and everywhere there was a want of hands to till the fields and get in the crops. The immediate effect was unfortunate. . . . The indifference of late years, when men were careless if their villans stayed on the prop- erty or emigrated, was succeeded by a sharp in- quisition after fugitive serfs, and constant legis- lation to bring them back to their masters. . . . The leading idea of the legislator was that the labourer, whose work had doubled or trebled in value, was to receive the same wages as in years past ; and it was enacted that he might be paid in kind, and, at last, that in all cases of con- tumacy he should be imprisoned without the op- tion of a fine. . . . The French war contributed in many ways to heighten the feeling of English nationality. Our trade, our language and our Church received a new and powerful influence. In the early years of Edward III.'s reign, Italian merchants were the great financiers of England, farming the taxes and advancing loans to the Crown. Gradually the instinct of race, the influ- ence of the Pope, and geographical position, contributed, with the mistakes of Edward's policy, to make France the head, as it were, of a confederation of Latin nations. Genoese ships served in the French fleet, Genoese bow- men fought at Crecy, and English privateers retorted on Genoese commerce throughout the course of the reign. In 1376 the Commons peti- tioned that all Lombards might be expelled the kingdom, bringing amongst other charges against them that they were French spies. The Floren- tines do not seem to have been equally odious, but the failure of the great firm of the Bardi in 1345, chiefly through its English engagements, obliged Edward to seek assistance elsewhere ; and he transfen'ed the privilege of lending to the crown to the merchants of the rising Hanse Towns." — C. H. Pearson, Eng. Hist, in the Four- teenth Century, ch. 9. — "We may trace the destruc- tive nature of the war with France in the notices of adjoining parishes thrown into one for want of sufficient inhabitants, ' of i^eople impoverished by frequent taxation of our lord the king,' until they had fled, of churches allowed to fall into ruin because there were none to worship within their walls, and of religious houses extinguished 839 ENGLAND, 1333-1380. The Black Death. ENGLAND, 1350-1400. because the monks and nuns had died, and none had been found to supply their places. ... To the poverty of the country and the consequent inability of the nation to maintain the costly wars of Edward III., are attributed the enact- ments of sumptuary laws, which were passed because men who spent much on their table and dress were unable ' to help their liege lord ' in the battle field."— W. Denton, JSng. in the 15th Century, int., pt. 2. A. D. 1348-1349.— The Black Death and its effects.— "The plague of 1349 . . . produced in every country some marked social changes. ... In England the effects of the plague are historically prominent chiefly among the lower classes of society. The population was dimin- ished to an extent to which it is impossible now even to approximate, but which bewildered and appalled the writers of the time ; whole districts were thrown out of cultivation, whole parishes depopulated, the number of labourers was so much diminished that on the one hand the surviv- ors demanded an extravagant rate of wages, and even combined to enforce it, whilst on the other hand the landowners had to resort to every anti- quated claim of service to get their estates culti- vated at all ; the whole system of farming was changed in consequence, the great landlords and the monastic corporations ceased to manage their estates by farming stewards, and after a short interval, during which the lands with the stock on them were let to the cultivator on short leases, the modern system of letting was introduced, and the permanent distinction between the farmer and the labourer established. " — W. Stubbs, Const. Hist, of En(j., ch. 16, sect. 359.— "On the first of August 1348 the disease appeared in the seaport towns of Dorsetshire, and travelled slowly west- wards and northwards, through Devonshire and Somersetshire to Bristol. In order, if possible, to arrest its progress, all intercourse with the citizens of Bristol was prohibited by the authori- ties of the county of Gloucester. These pre- cautions were however taken in vain ; the Plague continued to Oxford, and, travelling slowly in the same measured way, reached London by the first of November. It appeared in Norwich on the first of January, and thence spread north- wards. . . . The mortality was enormous. Per- haps from one-third to one-half the population fell victims to the disease. Adam of Monmouth says that only a tenth of the population survived. Similar amplifications are found in all the chroni- clers. We are told that 60,000 persons perished in Norwich between January and July 1349. No doubt Norwich was at that time the second city in the kingdom, but the number is impossible. ... It is stated that in England the weight of the calamity fell on the poor, and that the higher classes were less severely affected. But Edward's daughter Joan fell a victim to it and three arch- bishops of Canterbury perished in the same year. . . . All contemporary writers inform us that the immediate consequence of the Plague was a dearth of labour, and excessive enhancement of wages, and thereupon a serious loss to the land- owners. To meet this scarcity the king issued a proclamation directed to the sheriffs of the several counties, which forbad the payment of higher than the customary wages, under the penalties of amercement. But the king's mandate was every where disobeyed. . . . Many of the labourers were thrown into prison: many to avoid punish- ment fled to the forests, but were occasionally captured and fined ; and all were constrained to disavow under oath that they would take higher than customary wages for the future. " — J. E. T. Rogers, Hist, of Agriculture and Prices in Eng., V. 1, c7i. 15. See Black Death. Also in : F. A. Gasquet, The Great Pestilence. — W. Longman, Edward III., v. 1, ch. 16. — A, Jessop, The Coming of the Friars, itc, ch. 4-5, A. D. 1350-1400. — Chaucer and his relations to English language and literature. — "At the time when the conflict between church and state was most violent, and when Wyclif was begin- ning to_draw upon himself the eyes of patriots, there was considerable talk at the English court about a young man named Geoffrey Chaucer, who belonged to the king's household, and who both by his personality and his connections en- joyed the favor of the royal family. . . . On many occasions, even thus early, he had ap- peared as a miracle of learning to those about him — he read Latin as easily as French; he spoke a more select English than others; and it was known that he had composed, or, as the expression then was, 'made,' many beautiful Eng- lish verses. The young poet belonged to a well- to-do middle-class family who had many far- reaching connections, and even some influence with the court. . . . Even as a boy he may have heard his father, John Chaucer, the vintner of Thames Street, London, telling of the marvelous voyage he had made to Antwerp and Cologne in the brilliant suite of Edward III. in 1338. "When a youth of sixteen or seventeen, Geoffrey served as a page or squire to Elizabeth, duchess of Ulster, first wife of Lionel, duke of Clarence, and daughter-in-law of the king. He bore arms when about nineteen years of age, and went to France in 1359, in the army commanded by Edward III. . . . This epoch formed a sort of ' Indian summer ' to the age of chivalry, and its spirit found expression in great deeds of war as well as in the festivals and manners of the court. The ideal which men strove to realize did not quite correspond to the spirit of the former age. On the whole, people had become more worldly and practical, and were generally anxious to protect the real interests of life from the un- warranted interference of romantic aspirations. The spirit of chivalry no longer formed a funda- mental element, but only an ornament of life — an ornament, indeed, which was made much of, and which was looked upon with a sentiment partaking of enthusiasm. ... In the midst of this outside world of motley pomp and throbbing life Geoffrey could observe the doings of high and low in various situations. He was early initiated into court intrigues, and even into many political secrets, and found opportunities of studying the human type in numerous indi- viduals and according to the varieties developed by rank in life, education, age, and sex. . . . Nothing has been preserved from his early writ- ings. . . . The fact is very remarkable that from the first, or at least from a very early period, Chaucer wrote in the English language — how- ever natural this may seem to succeeding ages in 'The Father of English Poetry.' The court of Edward III. favored the language as well as the literature of France ; a considerable number of French poets and ' menestrels ' were in the service and pay of the English king. Queen Philippa, in particular, showing herself in this a 840 ENGLAND, 1350-1400. Chaitcer. ENGLAND, 1360-1414. true daughter of her native Hainault, formed the centre of a society cultivating the French language and poetry. She had in her personal service Jean Froissart, one of the most eminent representatives of that language and poetry ; like herself he belonged to one of the most northern districts of the French-speaking territory; he had made himself a great name, as a prolific and clever writer of erotic and allegoric trifles, be- fore he sketched out in his famous chronicle the motley-colored, vivid picture of that eventful age. We also see in this period young English- men of rank and education trj'ing their flight on the French Parnassus. . . . To these Anglo- French poets there belonged also a Kentishman of noble family, named John Gower. Though some ten years the senior of Chaucer, he had probably met him about this time. They were certainly afterwards very intimately acquainted. Gower . . . had received a very careful education, and loved to devote the time he could spare from the management of his estates to study and poetry. His learning was in many respects greater than Chaucer's. He had studied the Latin poets so diligently that he could easily express himself in their language, and he was equally good at writing French verses, which were able to pass muster, at least in England. . . . But Chaucer did not let himself be led astray by examples such as these. It is possible that he would have found writing in French no easy task, even if he had attempted it. At any rate his bourgeois origin, and the seriousness of his vocation as poet, threw a determining weight into the scale and secured his fidelity to the English language with a commendable consistency." — B. Ten Brink, Hist, of English Literature, bk. 4, ch. 4 (». 2, pt. 1). — "English was not taught in the schools, but French only, until after the acces- sion of Richard II., or possibly the latter years of Edward III., and Latin was always studied through the French. Up to this period, then, as there were no standards of literary authority, and probably no written collections of estab- lished forms, or other grammatical essays, the language had no fixedness or uniformity, and hardly deserved to be called a written speech. . . . From this Babylonish confusion of speech, the influence and example of Chaucer did more to rescue his native tongue than any other single cause ; and if we compare his dialect with that of any writer of an earlier date, we shall find that in compass, flexibility, expressiveness, grace, and all the higher qualities of poetical diction, he gave it at once the utmost perfection which the materials at his hand would permit of. The English writers of the fourteenth century had an advantage which was altogether peculiar to their age and country. At all previous periods, the two languages had co-existed, in a great degree independently of each other, with little tendency to intermix ; but in the earlier part of that cen- tury, they began to coalesce, and this process was going on with a rapidity that threatened a predominance of the French, if not a total ex- tinction of the Saxon element. . . . When the national spirit was aroused, and Impelled to the creation of a national literature, the poet or prose writer, in selecting his diction, had almost two whole vocabularies before him. That the syntax should be English, national feeling demanded ; but French was so familiar and habitual to all who were able to read, that probably the scholar- ship of the day would scarcely have been able to determine, with respect to a large proportion of the words in common use, from which of the two great wells of speech they had proceeded. Happily, a great arbiter arose at the critical mo- ment of severance of the two peoples and dia- lects, to preside over the division of the common property, and to determine what share of the contributions of France should be permanently annexed to the linguistic inheritance of English- men. Chaucer did not introduce into the Eng- lish language words which it had rejected as aliens before, but out of those which had been already received, he invested the better portion with the rights of citizenship, and stamped them with the mint-mark of English coinage. In this way, he formed a vocabulary, which, with few ex- ceptions, the taste and opinion of succeeding generations has approved ; and a literary diction was thus established, which, in all the qualities required for the poetic art, had at that time no superior in the languages of modern Europe The soundness of Chaucer's judgment, the nicety of his philological appreciation, and the delicacy of his sense of adaptation to the actual wants of the English people, are sufficiently proved by the fact that, of the Romance words found in his writings, not much above one hundred have been suffered to become obsolete, while a much larger number of Anglo-Saxon words employed by him have passed altogether out of use. ... In the three centuries which elapsed between the Conquest and the noon-tide of Chaucer's life, a large proportion of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of re- ligion, of moral and Intellectual discourse, and of taste, had become utterly obsolete, and unknown. The place of the lost words had been partly sup- plied by the importation of Continental terms; but the new words came without the organic power of composition and derivation which be- longed to those they had supplanted. Conse- quently, they were incapable of those modifica- tions of form and extensions of meaning which the Anglo-Saxon roots could so easily assume, and which fitted them for the expression of the new shades of thought and of sentiment born of every hour in a mind and an age like those of Chaucer." — G. P. Marsh, Origin and Hist, oftlie Eng. Lang., lect. 9. Also in : T. R. Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer. — A. W. Ward, Chaumr. — W. Godwin, Life of Geoffrey Chaucer. A. D. 1360-1414. — The Lollards. — "The Lol- lards were the earliest ' Protestants ' of England. They were the followers of John Wyclif, but be- fore his time the nickname of Lollard had been known on the continent. A little brotherhood of pious people had sprung up in Holland, about the year 1300, who lived in a half-monastic fashion and devoted themselves to helping the poor in the burial of their dead; and, from the low chants they sang at the funerals — lollen being the old word for such singing — they were called Lol- lards. The priests and friars hated them and accused them of heresy, and a Walter Lollard, probably one of them, was burnt in 1323 at Co- logne as a heretic, and gradually the name became a nickname for such people. So when Wyclif 's ' simple priests ' were preaching the new doctrines, the name already familiar in Holland and Ger- many, was given to them, and gradually became the name for that whole movement of religious reformation which grew up from the seed Wyclif 841 ENGLAND, 1360-1414. ^^'!/cl^Jfe mid the Lollards, ENGLAND, 1360-1414. sowed." — B. Herford, Story of Religion in Eiig.,ch. 16.— "A turning point arrived in the history of the reforming party at tlie accession of the house of Lancaster. King Henry the Fourth was not only a devoted son of the Church, but he owed his success in no slight measure to tlie assistance of the Churchmen, and above all to that of Arch- bishop Arundel. It was felt that the new dy- nasty and the hierarchy stood or fell together. A mixture of religious and political motives led to tlie passing of the well-known statute ' De hseretico comburendo ' in 1401 and thencefor- ward Lollardy was a capital offence." — R. L. Poole, Wydiffeaiul Movements for Reform, ch. 8. — "The abortive insurrection of the Lollards at the commencement of Henry V.'s reign, under the leadership of Sir John Oldcastle, had the effect of adding to the penal laws already in existence against the sect. " This gave to Lollardy a political character and made the Lollards enemies against the State, as is evident from the king's proclama- tion in which it was asserted ' ' that the insurgents intended to ' destroy him, his brothers and several of the spiritual and temporal lords, to confiscate the possessions of the Church, to .secularize the religious orders, to divide the realm into confed- erate districts, and to appoint Sir John Old- castle president of the commonwealth.'" — T. P. Taswell-Langmead, Eng. Const. Hist, {ith ed.), ch. 11. — "The early life of Wycliffe is obscure. ... He emerges into distinct notice in 1360, ten years subsequent to the passing of the first Statute of Provisors, having then acquired a great Oxford reputation as a lecturer in divinity. . . . He was a man of most simple life; aus- tere in appearance, with bare feet and russet mantle. As a soldier of Christ, he saw In his Great Master and his Apostles the patterns whom he was bound to imitate. By the contagion of example he gathered about him other men who thought as he did; and gradually, under his cap- taincy, these ' poor priests ' as they were called — vowed to poverty because Christ was poor — vowed to accept no benefice . . . spread out over the country as an army of missionaries, to preach the faith which they found in the Bible — lo preach, not of relics and of indulgences, but of repentance and of the grace of God. They car- ried with them copies of the Bible which Wycliffe had translated, . . . and they refused to recognize the authority of the bishops, or their right to silence them. If this had been all, and perhaps if Edward III. had been succeeded by a prince less miserably incapable than his grandson Rich- ard, AVycliffe might have made good his ground ; the movement of the parliament against the pope might have united in a common stream with the spiritual move against the church at home, and the Reformation have been antedated by a cen- tury. He was summoned to answer for himself before the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1377. Ho appeared in court supported by the presence of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lanca.ster, the elilest of Edward's surviving sous, and the authorities were unable to strike him behind so powerful a shield. But the ' poor ]3riests ' had other doc- trines. . . . His [Wycliffe's] theory of property, and his study of the character of Christ, had led him to the near confines of Anabaptism." The rebellion of Wat Tyler, which occurred in 1381, east odium upon all such opinions. " So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate dis- ciples ; and although his favour had far declined, a party in the state remained attached to him, with sufficient influence to prevent the adoption of extreme measures against the 'poor priests.' . . . They were left \mmolested for the next twenty years. . . . On the settlement of the coun- try under Henry IV. they fell under the general ban which struck down all parties who had shared in the late disturbances." — J. A. Froude, Mist, if Eng., ch. 6. — "Wycliffe's translation of the Bible itself created a new era, and gave birth to what may be said never to have existed till then — a popular theology. ... It is difficult in our day to imagine the impression such a book must have produced in an age which lunl scarcely any- thing in the way of popular literature, and which had been accustomed to regard the Scriptures as the special property of the learned. It was wel- comed with an enthusiasm which could not be restrained, and read with avidity both by priests and laymen. . . . The homely wisdom, blended with eternal truth, wliich has long since enriched our vernacular speech with a multitude of prov- erbs, could not thenceforth be restrained in its circulation by mere pious awe or time-honoured ])rejudicc. Divinity was discussed in ale-houses. Popular preachers made war upon old prejudices, and did much to shock that sense of reverence which belonged to an earlier generation. A new school had arisen with a theology of its own, warn- ing the people against the delusive preacliing of the friars, and asserting loudly its own claims to be true and evangelical, on the ground that it possessed the gospel in the English tongue. Ap- pealing to such an authority in their favour, the eloquence of the new teachers made a marvellous impression. Their followers increased with ex- traordinary rapidity. By the estimate of an op- ponent they soon numbered half the population, and you could hardly see two persons in the street but one of them was a Wycliffite. . . . They were supported by the powerful influence of John of Gaunt, who shielded not only AVycliffe him- self, but even the most violent of the fanatics. And, certainly, whatever might have been Wy- cliffe's own view, doctrines were promulgated by his reputed followers that were distinctly sub- versive of authority. John Ball fomented the in- surrection of Wat Tyler, by preaching the natural equality of men. . . . But the popularity of Lol- lardy was short-lived. The extravagance to which it led soon alienated the sympathies of the people, and the sect fell off in numbers almost as rapidly as it had risen." — J. Gairdner, Studies in Eng. JIisi.,t-2. — "Wyclif . . . was not without numerous followers, and the Lollardism which sprang out of his teaching was a living force in England for some time to come. But it was weak through its connection with suliversive social doc- trines. He liimself stood aloof from such doc- trines, but he could not prevent his followers from mingling in the social fray. It was perhaps their merit that they did so. The established con- stitutional order was but another name for op- pression and wrong to the lower classes. But as yet the lower classes were not sufficiently ad- vanced in moral and political training to make it safe to entrust them with the task of righting their own wrongs as they would have attempted to right them if they hatl gained the mastery. It had nevertheless become impossible to leave the peasants to be once more goaded by suffering into rebellion. The attempt, if it had been made, to 842 ENGLAND, 1360-1414. Richard II. and Wat Tijler. ENGLAND, 1381. enforce absolute labour-rents was tacitly aban- doned, and graIrs. Thompson, Becollections of Lit- erary Characters and Celebrated Places, v. 2, ch. 2. — E. Warburton, Memmrs of I'rince Bvpert and tlie Cavaliers, v. 2, ch. 4. A. D. 1644 (January— July). — The Scots in England.— The Battle of Marston Moor. — "On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. ... In the mean- time, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under the title of ' The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four Scottish Commissioners. Whatever belongs to the executive power as distinguished from the legislative devolved upon this Committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there were altogether 50,000 men under arms; the English forces being com- manded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller, Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller ad- vanced to blockade Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had be- come so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and passed safely be- tween the two hostile armies. There had again been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller. Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west. Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into AVorcestershire. Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, who had hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess. The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet either of the parliamentary armies thus separated. Meanwhile the combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York. Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then marched to- wards York with 20,000 men. The allied Eng- lish and Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster. Rupert entered York with 3,000 cavalry. The Earl of Newcastle was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his guidance, and he was resolved to fight. On the 2nd of July, having rested two daj's in and near York, and enabled the city to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the encounter would have been more than doubtful, but for Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish cavalry. . . . The charges of Fairfax and Crom- well decided the day. The victory of the par- liamentary forces was so complete that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at Scar- borough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with the wreck of his army, to Ches- ter. Fifteen hundred prisoners, all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the vic- tors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain." — C. Knight, Crown Hist, of Eng., ch. 25. Also in : T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speec/ies, pt. 2, letter 8. — B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, Jiinff and Commonwealth, ch. 7. — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Commonwealth, ch. 13 («. 1). — E. Warburton, Memmrs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, v. 2, ch. 4. A. D. 1644 (August — September^.— Essex's surrender. — The second Battle of Newbury. — 900 ENGLAND, 1644. Self-denying Ordinance. ENGLAND, 1645. "The great success at Marston, which had given the north to the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through feebleness and jeal- ousies in the leaders and the wretclied policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consist- ing of a local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex, Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston was fought; Man- chester had returned from York to protect his own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex, perversely advanc- ing into the west, was out-manceu vred by Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the sur- render of all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, Sept. 2, 1644]. By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the Parliament had not an army in the iield. But the Committee of the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last brought together near Newliury a united army nearly double the strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these ill- ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe. " — F. Harrison, Oliver- Cromwell, ch. 5. Also in : B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, King and Commonwealth, ch. 7. — S. R. Gardiner, Hist, of the Great Civil War, ch. 19 and'lX. A. D. 1644-1645. — The Self-denying Ordi- nance. — "Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the creation of the Ironsides ; his military genius had displayed itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a political leader. ' Without a more speedy, vigorous and effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons after his quarrel with Manchester, ' casting off all lingering proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and hate the name of a Parliament. ' But under the leaders who at present conducted it a vigor- ous conduct of the war was hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, ' afraid to conquer. ' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him back, with as much of his old strength re- maining as might be, to the position of a con- stitutional King. . . . The army, too, as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to con- quer with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, ' they must not expect any notable success in anything they went about.' But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying] Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared the tenure of civil or military offices in- compatible with a seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance, which was justified at a later time by the political results which fol- lowed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto lioiuid the array to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion was too strong to be withstood. Tlie passage of the Ordinance brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller; and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Mars- ton Moor." — J. R. Green, Sho^-t Hist, of Eng., ch. 8, sect. 7. Also m: AV. Godwin. Hist, of the Common- irralth, ch. 15 (». 1). — J. K. Hosmer, Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, ch. 11. — J. A. Picton, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 10. — J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane. A. D. 1645 (January — February). — The at- tempted Treaty of Uxbridge. — A futile negotia- tion between the king and Parliament was opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace ; they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered ; and he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion among the nego- tiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their un- happy covenant, and watched by their Scots col- leagues, the English commissioners on the parlia- ment's side demanded the complete establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy. Upou this head there was little pros- pect of a union." — H. Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 10, pt. 1. Also in: Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Re- hellion, bk. 8, sect. 209-252 (v. 3). A. D. 164s (January— April).— The New Model of the army. — The passage of the Self- denying Ordinance was followed, or accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called New Model of the army. ' ' The New Model was organised as follows : 10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000; 10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000; 10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000: Total, 31,000 men. All offi- cers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fair- fax, the new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his ap- pointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460 per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. . . . Sir Thomas Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Cliief by a vote of both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex, Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions on the 2nd. . . . The name of Cromwell was of course, with those of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original list of the New Model army ; but with a significance which could not have escaped re- mark, the appointment of lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom that vacancy would be filled." — N. L. Walford, The Parliamentary Oenerals of the Oreat Civil War, ch. 4. Also rcr : Sir E. Oust, Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars, pt. 2 .• Fairfax. 901 ENGLAND, 1645. Xaseby Pight. ENGLAND, 1645. A. D. 1645 (June).— The Battle of Naseby. — " Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was besieging. Before tliat task was completed lie received orders to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own views or those of the Independents. They had ioined their new army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should be fought. It was tlierefore witli great joy that Fairfax received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces, wliich, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against the Eastern Asso- ciation, and had j ust taken Leicester on their way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up with the king in the neighbourhood of Ilarborough. Charles turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory seems to have been chiefl}- due to his skill. In detail it is almost a repetition of the bat- tle of Marston Moor." — J. F. Bright, Hist, of England, period 3, p. 675. — "The old Hamlet of Naseby stands 3'et, on its old hill-top, very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border of Northamptonshire ; nearly on a line, and nearly midway, between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop, beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads off. North and South, into two long streets; the old Church with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spii'e finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods ; a ' hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the Eighth's time,' — which has, like Hudibras's breeches, ' been at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moor- land, though now growing corn; was not en- closed till the last generation, and is still some- what bare of wood. It stands nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; ' Navesby, quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' . . . It was on this high moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had de- spised till then : and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby. ' Prince Rupert, on tlie King's right wing, charged up the hill, and carried all before him ' ; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all before hira, — and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he. Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from the Association two days before, ' amid shouts from the whole Army ' : he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince Rupert, on returning from his [ilunder, finds the King's Infantry a ruin; pre- jiares to charge again with the rallied Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point, ' broke all asunder,' — never to reassemble more. . . . There were taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages'; — and above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery camp-fol- owers ■ with long skean-knives about a foot in length,' which they well knew how to use ; upon- whom I fear the Ordinance against Papists pressed Imrd this day. The King's Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal Auto- graphs in it, which when printed made a sad im- pression against his Majesty, — gave in fact a most melancholy view of the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was lost!" — T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, pt. 2, Utter 29. Also in : Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Mebel- lion, bk. 9, sect. 30-42 {c. 4).— E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, v. 3, ch. 1. A. D. 1645 (June — December). — Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King disclosed. — "At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen, chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were more injurious to [the king's] cause. ... He gave her [the queen] power to treat with the English catholics, prom- ising to take away all penal laws against them as soon as God sliould enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him to affect it. . . . Suspicions were much aggra- vated by a second discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws, but the establishment of their religion in far the greater part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby, who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against Glamor- gan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest powers to treat with the Irish, and prom- ising to fulfil any conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of this, disavowed Glamorgan. . . . Glamorgan, however, was soon released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's favour. This transaction has been the subject of much historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his indif- ference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch demonstrated tliat they were genuine; and, if his dissertation could have left any doubt, later evidence might be .id- duced in confirmation." — H. Hallam, Const. IL'st. ofEng.,ch. 10 (». 2). Also in: S. R. Gardiner, Hist, of the Great Cinl War, ch. 39 and4A(v. 3).— T. Carte, Life (f James, Duke of Ormond, bk. 4 {r. 3). — J. Lingard, Hist, of Eng., v. 10, ch. 3. A. D. 1645 (July— August).— The Clubmen. — "When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby fight], they found that in these counties the countrj'-people had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms, and carried ban- ners, with the motto — ' If you offer to plunder 902 ENGLAND, lU-io Preshyterianism. ENGLAND, 1646-1647. our cattle. Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen, however, could not hope to con- trol the movements of the disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few fruit- less attempts at resistance they dispersed." — B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, King and Com- monwealth, cli. 8. — " The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person knowu to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon stormed ; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been: ' Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen '; the design to be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated Counties ' : however, it has now come to nothing." — T. Carlyle, Olimr GromweWs Let- ters and Speeches, pt. 2, letter 14. A. D. 1645 (July— September). — The storm- ing of Bridgewater and Bristol. — " The con- tinuance of the civil war for a whole year after the decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's selfishness, and of his utter indiffer- ence to the sufferings of the people. All ra- tional hope was gone, and even Rupert advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans, persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garri- son to hold out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom. Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August, he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had carried Bridge- water by storm, July 21, capturing 3,000 pris- oners, with 36 pieces of artillery and 5.000 stand of arms. On the 21st of August he arrived be- fore Bristol, which Prince Rupert had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective garrison of 3.300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who still occupied the most defensiljle forts, surrendered the whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would not, that fighting was useless — that the royal cause was lost. — C. R. Markham, Life of the Oreat Lord Fairfax, ch. 21-23. Also in : Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Re- bellion, bk. 9. — W. Hunt, Bristol, c!i. 7. — E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Caraliers, v. 3, ch. 1. A. D. 1645 (September). — Defeat of Mont- rose at Philiphaugh. See Scotland: A. D. 1644-1645. A. D. 1646 (March). — Adoption of Preshy- terianism by Parliament. — " For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of West- minster Abbey. . . . They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism ; but the real questions at issue were the establishment of 903 the Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The Presbyterians, as we know, de- sired to establish their own form of Church gov- ernment by assemblies and synods, without any toleration for uon-conformists, whether Catholics, Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it no easy mat- ter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their own way. . . . After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory, prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the Common Prayer-book (3rd Jan. , 1645). The sign of the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments, the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about which the people were to stand or sit ; the passages of Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice ; no forms of prayer were pre- scribed. The same year a new directory for or- dination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered to ordain, and none were al- lowed to enter the ministry without first taking the covenant (8th Nov., 1645). This was fol- lowed by a third ordinance for establishing the Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of trial for three years. As originally introduced into the House, this ordi- nance met with great opposition, because it gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what, argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist ? . . . A modified ordinance accordingly was passed ; scandalous offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and excommunicate, were specified ; assemblies were declared subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from one Church assembly after another to the civil power — the Parliament (16th JIarch, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England and Scot- laud, felt deeply mortified. After all these years' contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left under the povver of the State — the disappointment was intense to a de- gree we cannot estimate. They looked on the Independents as the enemies of God : this ' lame Erastian Presbytery ' as hardly worth the having. . . . The Assembly of Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was changed into a committee for examining candidates for the Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up with- out any formal dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March, 1653." — B. M. Cor- dery and J. S: Phillpotts, King aud Common- wealth, ch. 9. Also in: S. R. Gardiner, Sist. of the Great Ciml War, ch. 40 (v. 3). — A. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, lects. 7, 9, 13. — Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly. — See, also, Independents. A. D. 1646-1647. — The King in the hands of the Scots. — His duplicity and his intrigues. — The Scots surrender hira. — "On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King had ridden into the Scottish army, and had en- trusted to his northern .subjects the guardianship ENGLAND, 1646-1647. The King and the Scots. ENGLAND, 1647. of his royal person. Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right to dis- pose of their King so long as he was on English soil ; and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle, an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order ; and the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carr3-ing their sovereign with them. . . . Mean- time the City Presbyterians were petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the godly and thorough reformation so long promised ; and they were supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the Scottish sense of it. . . . The question as to the disposal of the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues between Pres- byterianism and the sects. For if the King had been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have kept his crown and his Anglican ritual — at least for his own worship — and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this, he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament. On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were ap- pointed to lay certain propositions for peace be- fore the King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed and ex- aggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts done by Par- liament, or by its authority, were to be con- firmed ; and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford anti-Parliament, without due authori- sation from Westminster, were to be void. . . . On August 10th the Commissioners who had been sent to the King returned to Westminster. . . . The King had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to be discov- ered. . . . The death of the Earl of Essex on September 14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the victorious party. The Pres- byterians had hoped to restore him to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left without a man to rival in military authority the commanders whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too com- plete success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their sustenance and pay was pressing hea\>ily on the country. . . . No wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for diminish- ing or disbanding the army in England. . . . The I'arliameut, however, could not deal with the army, for two reasons . First, the negotia- tions with the Scotch lingered ; and next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January, 1647. when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in discharge of the Eng- lish debt to the Scottish army. But the success- ful accomplishment of this only increased the re- maining difficulty of the Parliament — that of paying their own soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declin- ing the Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached to him. . . . But to have carried with theiu an intractable man to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same time that he brought against them the whole power of Eng- land, would have been sheer insanity. Accord- ingly, they made the best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and, taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects, who conducted him to Holdenby House, in North- amptonshire, on the 6th of February, 1647." — J. A. Picton, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 13. Also in : S. R. Gardiner, The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution, ch. 7, sect. 4. — The same. Hist, of the Great Civil War, ch. 38-45 (». 2). — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Commonwealth, bk. 1, ch. 24-27, and bk. 2, ch. 1-6 (». 2).— Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion, bk, 9, sect. 161- 178, and bk. 10 (o. 8). A. D. 1647 (April — August). — The Army takes things in hand. — " The King was surren- dered to Parliament, and all now looking toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, dis- credit falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters [i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents, inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament, pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of sending to Ireland, dis- banding, neglecting the payment of arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon, whom all liked, whom the Pres- byterians indeed claimed, but who at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and In- dependents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a letter, brought to him the day before by three private soldiers, in which eight regi- ments of horse expressly refused to serve in Ire- land, declaring that it was a perfidious design to separate the soldiers from the officers whom tliey loved, — framed by men who, having tasted of power, were degenerating into tyrants. Holies and the Presbyterians were thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned the three soldiers to appear at once. ... A violent 904 ENGLAND, 1647. The King, Cromwell and the Army. ENGLAND, 1647. tumult arose in tbe House. The Presbyterians declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack and sugar provided, Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who sat next to him, and point- ing to the Presbyterians, said that those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an organization, a sort of Parlia- ment, in the Army, the officers forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as 'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agita- tors.' This organization had taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. ... At the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and appearing without warning, June 3, at Holmby House, where Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners, proposed to assume tbe custody of the King. A cool, quiet fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and was their spokesman, Joyce. ' What is your authority ? ' asked the King. The comet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at his back. ... So bold a step as the seizure of the King made necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most conspicuous for ex- treme views. The Army meanwhile hovered, ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. . . . But if Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer rebellion. . . . The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one hundred Commoners, betook them- selves to Fairfax, and on August 3 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place. The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect condition, and they were drawn out 30,000 strong to receive the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the midst of the column ; the city officials joined the train. At Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and the Houses again put to work, the first business being to thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them. The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Crom- well in the rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the war- like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work- shops and the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers looked neither to the right nor left ; nor by act, word, or gesture was any offence given." — J. K. Hosmer, Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, ch. 13. Also IN: C. R. Markham, Life of the Gtreai Lord Fairfax, ch. 34. — T. Carlyle, Oliver Crom- well's Letters and Speeches, pt. 3, letter 36. — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Commonwealth, bk. 3, ch. 7- 11. A. D. 1647 (August — December). — The King's " Game " with Cromwell and the army, and the ending of it. — After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The in- dignation of the soldiers at his delays and in- trigues made the task hourly more difficult ; but Cromwell . . . clung to the hope of accommoda- tion with a passionate tenacity. His mind, con- servative by tradition, and above all practical in temper, saw the political difficulties which would follow on the abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he persisted in negotiat- ing with liim. But Cromwell stood almost alone ; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's pro- posals as a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform, for the aboli- tion of the House of Peers, for a new House of Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Coun- cil of Officers to discuss the question of abolish- ing Royalty itself. Cromwell was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long, and Charles was still resolute to ' play his game.' He was, in fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking their lives for him he was conducting another and equally delusive negotiation with the Parliament. ... In the midst of his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with astonish- ment that he had been duped throughout, and that the King had fled [Nov. 11, 1647]. . . . Even Cromwell was powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers, and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at last, ' but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is not to be trusted. ' By a strange error, Charles had made his way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he set himself to organize it from his prison ; and while again opening delusive negotia- tions with the Parliament, he signed a secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm. The rise of Independency, and the practical sus- pension of the Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north of the Tweed. . . . In England the whole of the conservative party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward the King ; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for fitful insurrections in almost every quarter." — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of Eng. , ch. 8, sect. 8. Also in : F. P. Guizot, Hist, of the Eng. Rev. of 1040, bk. 7-8.— L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng. nth Century, bk. 10, ch. 4.— W. God*in, Hist, of the Commonwealth.— Q. Hillier, Narrative of 905 ENGLAND, 1647. Treat:/ of Newport. ENGLAND, 1648. attempted Escapes of Charles I. from Carishrooke Castle. &c. A. D. 1648 (April— August).— The Second Civil War.— Defeat of the Scots at Preston. —"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a short but formidable affair. The whole of "Wales was speedily in insurrec- tion ; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester, Pembroke, Colches- ter, were held for the king ; the fleet revolted ; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north; Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May Crom- well reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt, and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness, detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed rather fit for a hospital than a battle. ' Having joined Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive and important victories ever gained by Crom- well, over the most numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he was in supreme command. . . . Early on the morning of the 17th August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of the Duke of Hamil- ton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a long, straggling, unprotected line. The in- vaders consisted of 17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The long ill-or- dered line was cut in half and rolled back north- ward and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was upon them. The great host, cut Into sections, fought with desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were taken. ' We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell, ' but a very great number ; having done execu- tion upon them above thirty miles together, be- sides what we killed in the two great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior officer. . . . The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell hastened to recover Berwick and Car- lisle, and to restore the Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland." — F. Harrison, Oliver Crom- well, ch. 7. Also in: J. H. Burton, Sist. of Scotland, ch. 74 (*. 7).— Earl of Clarendon, Sist. of the Rebel- lion, bk. 11 (0. 4). A. D. 1648 (September— November).— The Treaty at Newport. — "The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke of Hamil- ton, and of the various insurrections throughout England, quelled by the vigilance and good con- duct of Fairfax and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of Lon- don, ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a vote, by 165 to 99, that they would not alter the fundamental government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the upper house and the most obnoxious to the army : they restored the eleven members to their seats ; they revoked their resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even that which required his assent by certain preliminary articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional, re- gained its ascendancy. This change in the coun- sels of parliament brought on the treaty of New- port. The treaty of Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered, somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake, and that their own privileges were set on the same cast. Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of Nor- thumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison ; and their present mortification af- forded a proof how men reckoned wise in their generation become the dupes of their own selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew an.\ious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that it was necessary to antici- pate, if possible, the return of Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not, however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so often jiroposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his surrender of almost all that could be de- manded." — H. Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 10, pt. 2, — The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later day when his correspondence came to light. " After hav- ing solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ire- land should cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (Oct. 10) : ' Obey my wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free from all restraint ; nor trouble yourself about my concessions as to Ireland ; they will not lead to anything ;' and the day on which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty years the command of the army (Oct. 9), he wrote to sir William Hopkins: ' To tell you the truth, my great concession this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own it would break my heart, for I have done that which ray escape alone can justify. ' The parliament, though without any exact information, suspected all this perfidy ; even the friends of peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges of the independents. " — F. P. Guizot, Hist, of the Eng. Rev. of 1640, bk. 8. Also in : Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Re- bellion, bk. 11, sect. 153-190 (v. 4).— I. Disraeli, Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I. , V. 2, ch. 39-40. A. D. 1648 (November — December). — The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge. — The Long Parliament cut down to the 906 ENGLAND, 1648. Pride^s Purge. ENGLAND, 1649. Rump.— On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king. This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it had been voted unani- mously in the council of officers, and entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The re- monstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called upon parlia- ment to enact its own dissolution, with provision for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial parliaments. Ten days passed with- out attention being given to this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its considera- tion of the document. On the first of December there appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea towards the Isle of Wight. " The same day on which this was done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament ; and the two following days were occupied by the house of commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the negociation. Vane was one of the prin- cipal speakers against the treaty ; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the independ- ents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of the 5th, by a majority of 130 to 83, that the king's answers to the propo- sitions of both houses were a ground for them to proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom. On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw near to London, for the accom- plishment of the purposes of the remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. . . . On the 5th of December three officers of the army held a meeting with three members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound members might best be separated from those by whom their measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a regi- ment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia, having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons. Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his hand of the persons lie was com- missioned to arrest; and sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an intention of passing into the house. Forty- one members were thus arrested. ... On the following day more members were secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwel took his seat ; and Henry Martea moved that the speaker should return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the members who had been taken into custody by the military were liberated. . . . Besides those who were absolutely secured, or shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were other members that looked with dislike on the present proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily abstained from being present at their sittings and debates." — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Common- icealth, bk. 2, ch. 23-24 (v. 2).— "The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number, and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'" — J. K. Hosmer, Life of Young Sir Heni-yVane, ch. 13. — ■" This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump. " — D. Neal, Hist, of the Puritans, v. 4, ch. \, foot-note. Alsoln: C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Faitfa.v, ch. 28. — D. Massou, Life of John Milton, bk. 4, ch. 1 and 3 (». 3). A. D. 1649 (January). — The trial and execu- tion of the King. — "During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor [whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of December], there had been proceedings in Par- liament of which he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of treason ; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court, — peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being, after God, the source of all just power, the representa- tives of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that whatsoever is enacted or de- clared for law by the Commons in Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are con- cluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either to the ancient constitu- tion of the monarchy, or to the possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in constitut- ing the High Court of Justice in the name of the Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson, ' were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded nor compelled ; and as there were some nominated in the commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but durst not hold on, so- all the rest might have declined it if they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered nothing by so doing. ' . . . On the 19th of Janu- ary, major Harrison appeared ... at Windsor with his troop. There was a coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King took his seat ; and, once more, he entered London, an(J 907 ENGLAND. 1649. Trial and Execution of the King. ENGLAND, 1649. was lodged at St. James's palace. The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in West- minster-hall. . . . After the names of the mem- bers of the court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the president, ordered the Ser- jeant to bring in the prisoner. Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and con- temptuously around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained covered. . . . The clerk reads the charge, and when he is accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the face of the Court. ' Though bis tongue usually hesitated, yet it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed In mind,' writes Warwick. . . . Again and again contending against the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene was renewed ; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the monarch became apparent. The cries of ' Justice, justice,' which were heard at first, were now mingled with ' God save the King. ' He had refused to plead ; but the Court nevertheless em- ployed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament. Coke, the solicitor-gen- eral, then demanded whether the Court would proceed to pronouncing sentence ; and the mem- bers adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the S7th the public sitting was resumed. . . . The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King ' de- sired to make one proposition before tliey pro- ceeded to sentence ; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he thought would lead to the rec- onciling of all parties, and to the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer it: the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that which should satisfy and secure all interests. ' Ludlow goes on to say, ' Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose his own resignation, and the admission of his sou to the throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The commissioners re- tired to deliberate, ' and being satisfied, upon de- bate, that nothing but loss of time would be the consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn speech to the King. . . . The clerk was lastly commanded to read the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body ; ' and the commissioners, ' says Ludlow, ' testified their unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak; 'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the 29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of execution, addressed to ' colonel Francis Hacker, colonel Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of them.' . . . There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst tlie French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors from the States never- theless persevered ; and early in the day of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax. 'But we found,' they say in their des- patch, ' in front of the house In which we had just spoken with the general, about 200 horse- men ; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to prevent any one from coming in or going out. . . . The same day, between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, sur- rounded by soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It was a bitterly cold morn- ing. . . . His purposed address to the people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the scaffold, but its purport was that the people mis- took the nature of government; for people are free under a government, not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the laws of it. ' His theory of government was a consistent one. He had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been fast passing away for Its assertion. The headsman did his office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding multi- tude." — Charles Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng- land, V. 4, ch. 7.- — "In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell. He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, de- fended it to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely answerable for the deed than he. 'I tell you,' he said to Algernon Sidney, ' we will cut off his head with the crown upon it. ' . . . Slowly he had come to know — not only that the man, Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any settlement of Parlia- ment with the old Feudal Monarchy was impos- sible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaf- fold the old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great mark was set in the course of the national life — the Old Rule behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary govern- ment, the consent of the nation, equality of lights, and equity in the law — all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts indeed re- turned for one generation, but with the sting of the Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so. They killed the Old Monarchy ; and the restored mon- arch was by no means its heir, but a royal Stadt- holder or Hereditary President." — F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 7. — "Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by Fox, that ' it is much to be doubted whether his trial and execution have not, as much as any other circum- stance, served to raise the character of the Eng- lish nation in the opinion of Europe ki general. ' And he goes on to speak with considerable favour of the authors of that event. One of the great authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and flft}' years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not easy to im- agine a greater criminal than the individual against whom the sentence was awarded. . . . Liberty is one of the greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a man ; without it we cannot possess any high degree of happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles, to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, con- spired against the liberty of his country. To 908 ENGLAND, 1649. Charles I. Adjudged. ENGLAND, 1649. assert his own authority without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all his actions, so far as the public was concerned. To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a parliament. When he was compelled once more to have re- course to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he determined to bring up the array, and by that means to put an end to its sit- tings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a new war ; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be reconciled ; he could never be disarmed ; he could never be con- vinced. His was a war to the death, and there- fore had the utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the liberty of a nation. . . . The proper lesson taught by the act of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high in station, however protected by the prejudices of his contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare of the state and community, without retribution and punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the condemna- tion and execution of Charles did not answer the purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party. This was in some degree owing to the decency with which Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal, sober and specious. . . . The notion was every where prevalent, that a sov- ereign could not be called to account, could not be arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness which never be- fore appertained to it. Among his own partisans the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of his family certain. " — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Commonwealth of Eng- land to the Bestoration of Charles II., bk. 2, ch. 26 (v. 2). — "The situation, complicated enough already, had been still further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor ; and men who had long been alien- ated from him were irritated into active hos- tility. By these he was regarded with increasing intensity as the one disturbing force with which no understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be fulfilled, to flint; themselves, as they had flung themselves in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which was struggling to establish itself in Eng- land. " — S. R. Gardiner, Hist, of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649, ch. 71 (v. 3). Also in : John Forster, Statesmen of the Com- monwealth : Henry Marten. — S. R. Gardiner, Const. Doc's of the Puritan Rev., pp. 868-290. The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King and constituted the Court by which he was tried: " Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of England, not content with the many encroachments which his predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and freedom, hath had a wicked de- sign totally to subvert the antient and funda- mental laws and liberties of this nation, and in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyran- nical government ; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against the parliament and kingdom ; whereby this coun- try hath been miserably wasted, the public treas- ure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of people nuirdered, and infinite other mischiefs committed ; for all which high and treasonable offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly been brought to exemplary and condign punish- ment : whereas also the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment of his per- son after it had pleased God to deliver him into their hands, would have quieted the distem- pers of the kingdom, did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by sad ex- perience, that such their remissness served only to encourage him and his accomplices in the con- tinuance of their evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and invasions : for prevention therefore of the like or greater incon- veniences, and to the end no other chief officer or magistrate whatsoever may hereafter pre- sume, traiterously and maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing ; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority thereof. That the earls of Kent, Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief baron Wylde ; the lord Fairfax, lieut. general Cromwell, &c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing, Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Jus- tice, to meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof, at meeting, shall hold fit ; and to take order for the charging of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons above-mentioned, and for receiv- ing his personal Answer thereunto, and for 909 ENGLAND, 1649. The Commonwealth. ENGLAND, 1649. examination of witnesses upon oath, (which the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise, and taking any other Evidence con- cerning the same ; and thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and such final Sentence to execute, or cause to he executed, speedily and impartially. — And the said court is hereby" authorized and required to chuse and appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the Gen- eral, and all officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed unto them ; provided that this act, and the authority hereby granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from the date of the making hereof, and no longer." — Cobbett's Parliamentary Uist. of England, v. 3, pp. 1254- 1255, A. D. 1649 (February). — The Commonwealth established. — "England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually made on Thurs- day, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed their three great Resolutions, declaring (1) that the People of England were, under God, the original of all just power in the State, (3) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been chosen by the People, and repre- senting the People, possessed the supreme power In their name, and (3) that whatever the Com- mons enacted should have the force of a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of Peers. On Tuesday, the 30th of Janu- ary, the theory of these Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the Commons passed an Act ' prohibit- ing the proclaiming of any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers ? It was significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived their three theo- retical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of Commons, ' ' ' That the House of Peers in Par- liament is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Next da}', Feb. 7, after another long debate, it was further resolved ' That it hath been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power thereof in any sin- gle person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dan- gerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the custom- ary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of mere Parliamentary form. Theoreti- cally a Republic since Jan. 4, 1648-9, and visi- bly a Republic from the day of Charles's death. England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense from Feb. 7, 1648-9." For the adminis- tration of the government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be erected, to consist of not more than forty per- sons. On the 13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were reported and agreed to, ' ' these Instructions conferring almost plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to one year." On the 14th and 15th forty -one persons were appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell, Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels Hutch- inson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute a quorum, and no permanent Presi- dent to be chosen. — D. Masson, Life of John Hil- ton, 11. 4, bk. 1, ch. 1. Also in: J. Lingard, Hist, of Eng., ■i\ 10, ch. 5. — A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of Hist, of JEfng. . ch. 1. A. D. 1649 (February). — The Ejkon Basilike. — "A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious circumstances, Feb. 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist enthusiasm. 'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestic in his Solitudes and Sufferings. — Rom. viii. More than conquerour, &c. — -Bona agere et mala pati Regium est. MDCXLVIII ' : such was the title-page of this volume (of 369 pages of text, in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to be one of the most famous books of the world. . . . The book, so elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter, with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or generally rather with reflections and meditations on some passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics appropriate to the circumstances remembered. . . . Save for a few . . . passages . . . , the pathos of which lies in the situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the Liturgy, and without in- cision, point, or the least shred of real informa- tion as to facts. But O what a reception it had I Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in various forms, to supply the constant demand — which was not satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist households. . . . By means of this book, in fact, acting on the state of sentiment which it fitted, there was estab- lished, within a few weeks after the death of Charles I. , that marvellous worship of his mem- ory, that passionate recollection of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters." — D. Masson, Life and Times of John Milton, v. 4, hk. 1, ch. 1. — "I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday ; one of the paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear- starched, immaculate falsity and cant I have 910 ENGLAND, 1649. War with, the Dutch. ENGLAND, 1652-1654. ever read. It is to me an amazement how any mortal could ever have taken tliat for a genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a sur- pliced Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden, Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the Restora- tion, and who is believed to have been the author of the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric." — T. Carlyle, in Hist, of his Life in London, by Froude, v. 1, ch. 7, Nov. 26, 1840. A. D. 1649 (April — May). — Mutiny of the Levellers. See Levellers. A. D. 1649-1650. — Cromwell's campaign in Ireland. See Ireland: A. D. 1649-1650. A. D. 1650 (July). — Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland. See Scotland: A. D. 1650 (March — .Idly). A. D. 1650 (September).— War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar. See Scotland: A. D. 1650 (September). A. D. 1651 (September).— The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester. See Scotland: A. D. 1651. A. D. 1651-1653. — The Army and the Rump. — " ' Now that the King is dead and his son de- feated,' Cromwell said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessarj' to come to a settlement. ' But the settlement which had been promised after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell pressed it in per- son, was only passed, after bitter opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had been purchased by a compromise which per- mitted the House to sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a dead lock. . . . The one remedy for all this was, as the army saw, the assembly of a new and complete Par- liament in place of the mere ' rump ' of the old ; but this was the one measure which tlie House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new activity. . . . But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not only to show the energy of the Par- liament, but to free it from the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this view the quarrel with Hollantl had been carefully nursed. . . . The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the introduc- tion of a bill for its disbanding to understand the new policy of the Parliament. . . . The army petitioned not only for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the resolve of the sitting mem- bers to continue as a part of the coming Parlia- ment without re-election. The officers, irritated by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. ' As for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason. "... Not only were the existing members to continue as members of the New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their right of choosing representa- tives, but they were to constitute a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each election, and the fitness of the members returned. A conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of the Commons and the officers of the army. . . . The conference was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that no decisive step should be taken ; but it had no sooner reassembled, than the absence of the lead- ing members confirmed the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new Representative through the House. ' It is contrary to common honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall, he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as the door of the House of Commons." — J. R. Green, Sho7-t Hist, of Eng., ch. 8, sect. 9. Also in : J. Forster, Statesmen of the Common- wealth: Cromwell. — J. A. Picton, Oliver Crom- well, ch. 23. A. D. 1651-1672. — The Navigation Acts and the American colonies. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1651-1672 ; also. Navigation Laws. A. D. 1652-1654.— War with the Dutch Re- public. — "After the deatli of William, Prince of Orange, which was attended ■^^'ith the depression of his party and the triumph of the Dutch re- publicans [see Netherlands : A. D. 1647-1650], the Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John, chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two republics, which would have rendered their interests totally inseparable; . . . but the states, who were unwilling to form a nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so ob- noxious, and whose situation seemed so precari- ous, offered only to renew the former alliances with England; and tlie haughty St. John, dis- gusted with tills disappointment, as well as in- censed at many affronts which had been offered him, with impunity, by the retainers of the Pala- tine and Orange families, and indeed by the popu- lace in general, returned into England and en- deavoured to foment a quarrel between the republics. . . . There were several motives which at this time induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures. Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as a pre- tence for continuing tlie same Parliament, and de- laying the new model of a representative, with which the nation had so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the otlier hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments would prove a motive for diminishing the military establish- ment. To divert the attention of the public from domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. . . . All these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parlia- ment to change the purposed alliance into a furi- ous war against the United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of com- merce, embraced such measures as they knew would give disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the growth 911 ENGLAND, 1652-1654. Expulsion of ther I Bump. ENGLAND, 1653. and manufacture of their own country. . . . The minds of men in both states were every day more irritated against each other ; and it was not long before these humours broke forth into action. " — D. Hume, Hist, of Eng., ch. 60 {». 5).— "The ne- gotiations . . . were still pending when Blalte, meeting Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1653). The maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to yield the com- mand to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp was reinstated in command. A vic- tory over Blake off the Naze (Nov. 38) enabled him to cruise in the Cliannel with a broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the Eng- lish from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La Hogue ; while at length, on the 3d and 3d of June, a decisive engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk and l3eane, supported by Bluke, completely defeated the Dutch Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his own ship, and tlieu retreated to the Dutch coast, leav- ing eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month, another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the treaty was signed, in which IDenmark, the Hanseatic towns, and the Swiss provinces were included. . . . The Dutch ac- knowledged the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas ; tliey consented to the Naviga- tion Act. " — J. F. Bright, Hist, of Eng. , period 2, p. 701. Also in : W. H. Dixon, Robert BlaJce, Admiral and General at Sea, ch. 6-7. — D. Hannay, Admiral Blake, ch. 6-7.— J. Campbell, Naval Hist, of Ot. B., ch. 15 (i). 2). — 6. Peun, Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn. ch. 4. — J. Corbett, Monk, ch. 7. — J. Geddes, Hist, of the Administration of John De Witt, v. 1, hk. 4-5. — See, also. Navigation Laws, English: A. D. 1651. A. D. 1653 (April). — Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump. — "In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, ' the work Is very great and dangerous.' — 'You say well,' said the general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again, ' This is the time ; I must do it. ' He rose up, put off his hat, and spoke. Beginning moder- ately and respectfully, he presently changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of jus- tice, self interest, and other faults ; charging them not to have a heart to do anything for tlie public good, to have espoused the corrupt inter- est of Presbytery and the lawyers, who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accus- ing them of an intention to perpetuate them- selves in power. And rising into passion, ' as if he were distracted,' he told tliem tiiat the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other in- struments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir Peter Wentworth rose to complain of sucli language in Parliament, com- ing from their own trusted servant. Roused to fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping with his feet, and cried out, ' You are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this ; I will put an end to your prat- ing. Call them in ! ' Twenty or thirty muske- teers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, ' This is not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.' Crom- well, who evidently regai'ded Vane as the breaker of the supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying, ' O Sir Henry Vane. Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane. ' Then looking upon one of the members, he said, 'There sits a drunkard ;' to another he said, ' Some of you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the profession of the Gospel.' ' Some are whoremasters, ' he said, looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he said, ' What shall we do with this Bauble ? Here, take it away I ' and gave it to a musketeer, ' Fetch him down, ' he cried to Harrison, point- ing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and re- fused to come down unless by force. ' Sir, ' said Harrison, 'I will lend you my hand,' and put- ting his liand within his, the Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place. ' Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Wors- ley put their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The mejnbers went out, fifty- three in all, Cromwell still calling aloud. 'To Vane he said that he might have prevented tliis ; but that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,' he said, as they passed him, ' that have forced me to do this, for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to clear the House of all members, and to have tlie door locked, and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately unravelled. ... In strict constitutional right tlie House was no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of Commons, which had executed the king, abolished tlic Lords, approved the 'coup d'etat ' of Pride, and by successive proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme par- tisans, had no legal title to the name of Parlia- ment. The junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor had their services to the Cause been so great. In closing tlie House, the Lord-General had used 912 ENGLAND, 1653. The Protectorate. ENGLAND, 1653. his office of Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one ' coup d'etat ' by anotlier. Had he been ten minutes late. Vane would himself liave dissolved the House ; snapping a vote which would give his faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had that ' scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of legal right, which counts for so much in things polit- ical." — F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 10. Also in : J. K. Hosmer, Life of Young Sir Henri/ j Vane, pt. 3, ch. 17.— F. P. Guizot, Hist, of Oliver I Cromwell, bk. 4 {v. 1). — L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng., nth century, bk. 11, ch. 5 {i\ 3).— W. God- | win, ffist. of the Commonwealth. ■». 3, ch. 27-39. j A. D. 1653 (June — December). — The Bare- ! bones, or Little Parliament. — Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his own name, and upon his own authority, as "Cap- tain-General and Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred and forty " persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and honesty," chosen and " nominated " by him- self, with the advice of his council of officers, re- quiring them to be and appear at the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust" of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government " of the Common- wealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so summoned, ' only two ' did not at- tend. Disconsolate Bulstrode says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme Authority of this Nation; considering how little right Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentle- men to take it. ' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity ; saying as audibly as the means permitted : Yea, we did wish it so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. . . . The undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a quite re- putable Assembly ; got together by anxious ' con- sultation of the godly Clergy ' and chief Puritan lights in their respective Counties ; not without much earnest revision, and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it well. The List of the Assembly exists ; not 3'et entirely gone dark for mankind. A fair pro- portion of them still recognizable to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage Families, two or three, which still exist among us, — Colonel Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature ; whom if not the King and his pasteboard Nor- roys have had the luck to make Peers of, the liv- ing heart of England has since raised to the Peer- age and means to keep there, — Colonel Robert Blake the Sea-King, for one. ' Known persons,' I do think ; ' of approved integrity, men fearing Gtod ' ; and perhaps not entirely destitute of sense any one of them ! Truly it seems rather a dis- tinguished Parliament, — even though Mr. Praise- god Barbone, ' the Leather merchant in Fleet- street,' be, as all mortals must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable. Praise- 91 god, though he deals in leather, and has a name which can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents ; to be himself a man of piety, of under.standing and weight, — -and even of consid- erable private capital, my witty flunkey friends ! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he can, I think. ... In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or Speaking- Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England, as exact as could well be got, — much more exact, I suppose, than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little Parliament, and wittily Bare- bone's Parliament; which meets on the 4th of July. Their witty name survives ; but their his- tory is gone all dark." — -T. Carlyle, Oliver Crom- ivell's Letters and Speeches, pt. 7, speech 1. — The " assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic and impracticable re- formers that everything substantial among Eng- lish institutions was threatened with overthrow at their hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily able to bring about a dis- solution of his parliament, by the action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his hands, — which was done on the 10th of De- cember, 1653. — P. P. Guizot, Hist, of Oliver Crom- well, bk. 5 (V. 3). Also nst : J. A. Picton, Oliver Cromtoell, ch. 23. A. D. 1653 (December). — The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate. — The Instrument of Government. — "What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is soon told. The Council of Officers having been sum- moned by Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method of headship in a ' Single Person ' for his whole life must now be tried in the Government of the Common- wealth, and that Cromwell must be that ' Single Person.' The title of King was actually pro- posed; but, as there were objections to that, Protector was chosen as a title familiar in Eng- lish History and of venerable associations. Ac- cordingly, Cromwell having consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on Fri- day, Dec. 16, in a great a.ssembly of civic, judic- ial and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any experiment of the Single Person method in Government as a treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty generally throughout the country and even among the Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity of the time, the only possible salvation of the Com- monwealth from the anarchy, or wild and ex- perimental idealism, in matters civil and re- ligious, which had been the visible drift at last of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. . . . The powers and duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately, in a Constitu- ENGLAND. 1653. Instruinenf of Government. ENGLAND, 1G.53. donal Instrument of forty-two Articles, called ' The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as The Instrument of Govern- ment] to which Cromwell had sworn fidelity at his installation. " — D. Masson, Life of John Mil- ton, x>. 4. bk. 4, ch. 1 and 3. Also m : J. Forster, Statesmen of the Common- wealth: Cromwell. — L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng., nth Century, bk. 13, ch. 1 {v. 3).— S. R. Gardiner, Const. Doc's of tlie Puritan Bev., inti'od., sect. 4 and pp. 314-324. — Cobhett's Parliamentary Hist. of England, ». i, pp. 1417-1426. The following is the text of the Instrument of Government: The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the domin- ions thereunto belonging. I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament ; the style of which per- son shall be the Lord Protector of the Common- wealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the administration of the government over the said countries and dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen. , III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants, and other things, which now run in the name and style of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament, shall run in the name and style of the Lord Pro- tector, from whom, for the future, shall be de- rived all magistracy and honours in these tlii?e nations ; and have the power of pardons (except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the council, and according to these presents and the laws. IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent of Parlia- ment ; and that the Lord Protector, with the ad- vice and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals of Parliament. V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states; and also, with the consent of the major part of the council, have the power of war and peace. VI. That the laws shall not be altered, sus- pended, abrogated, or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or imposition laid U]ion the people, but by common consent in Par- liament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth article. VII. That there shall be a Parliament sum- moned to meet at Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the present Parliament. VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months, to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own con- sent. IX. That as well the next as all other succes- sive Parliaments, shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed ; that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parlia- ment, shall be, and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty ; and the persons to be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty. X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from time to time, for the several coimties of England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon- Tweed, and all places within the same respec- tively, shall be according to the proportions and numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say, Bedfordshire, 5; Bedford Town, 1; Berkshire, 5 ; Abingdon, 1 ; Reading, 1 ; Buckinghamshire, 5; Buckingham Town, 1; Aylesbury, 1; Wy- comb, 1; Cambridgeshire. 4; Cambridge Town, 1 ; Cambridge University, 1 ; Isle of Ely, 2 ; Cheshire, 4 ; Chester, 1 ; Cornwall, 8 ; Launces- ton, 1 ; Truro, 1 ; Penryn, 1 ; East Looe and West Looe, 1; Cumberland, 2; Carlisle, 1; Der- byshire, 4; Derby Town, 1; Devonshire, 11; Exeter, 2; Plymouth, 2; Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1 ; Totnes, 1 ; Barnstable, 1 ; Tiverton, 1 ; Honiton, 1 ; Dorsetshire, 6 ; Dorchester, 1 ; Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1 ; Lyme-Regis, 1 ; Poole, 1 ; Durham, 2 ; City of Durham, 1 ; Essex, 13; Maiden, 1; Colchester, 2; Gloucester- shire, 5; Gloucester, 2; Tewkesbury, 1; Ciren- cester, 1; Herefordshire. 4; Hereford, 1; Leo- minster, 1 ; Hertfordshire. 5 ; St. Alban's, 1 ; Hertford, 1 ; Huntingdonshire, 3 ; Huntingdon, 1 ; Kent, 11; Canterbury, 2; Rochester, 1; Maid- stone, 1 ; Dover, 1 ; Sandwich, 1 ; Queenborough, 1 ; Lancashire, 4 ; Preston, 1 ; Lancaster, 1 ; Liv- erpool, 1 ; Manchester, 1 ; Leicestershire, 4 ; Lei- cester, 2; Lincolnshire, 10; Lincoln, 2; Boston, 1 ; Grantham, 1 ; Stamford, 1 ; Great Grimsby, 1; Middlesex, 4; London, 6; Westminster, 2; Monmouthshire, 3; Norfolk 10; Norwich, 2; Lynn-Regis, 2; Great Yarmouth, 2; Northamp- tonshire, 6 ; Peterborough, 1 ; Northampton, 1 ; Nottinghamshire, 4; Nottingham, 2; Northum- berland, 3; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1; Berwick, 1; Oxfordshire, 5; Oxford City, 1; Oxford Uni- versity, 1 ; Woodstock, 1 ; Rutlandshire, 2 ; Shrop- shire, 4 ; Shrewsbury, 2 ; Bridgnorth, 1 ; Ludlow, 1; Staffordshire, 3; Lichfield, 1; Stafford, 1; Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1 ; Somersetshire, 11 ; Bristol, 2; Taunton, 2; Bath, 1 ; Wells, 1 ; Bridg- water, 1 ; Southamptonshire, 8 ; Winchester, 1 ; Southampton, 1 ; Portsmouth, 1 ; Isle of Wight, 2; Andover, 1; Suffolk, 10; Ipswich, 2; Bury St. Edmunds, 2 ; Dunwich, 1 ; Sudbury, 1 ; Sur- rey, 6 ; Soutliwark, 2 ; Guildford, 1 ; Reigate, 1 ; Sussex, 9; Chichester, 1; Lewes, 1; East Grin- stead, 1; Arundel, 1; Rye, 1; Westmoreland, 2; Warwickshire, 4; Coventry, 2; Warwick, 1; AViltshire, 10; New Sarum, 2; Marlborough, 1; Devizes, 1; Worcestershire, 5; Worcester, 2. Yorkshire. — West Riding, 6; East Riding, 4; North Riding, 4 ; City of York, 2 ; Kingston-upon- Hull, 1 ; Beverley, 1 ; Scarborough, 1 ; Richmond, 1; Leeds, 1; Halifax, 1. Wales. — Anglesey, 2: 914 ENGLAND, 1653. Inst'mment of Government. ENGLAND, 1653. Brecknockshire, 2; Cardiganshire. 3; Carmar- thenshire, 2; Carnarvonsliire, 2; Denbighshire, 2 : Flintsliire, 3 ; Glamorganshire, 3 ; Cardiff, 1 ; Merionethshire, 1; Montgomeryshire, 3; Pem- brokeshire, 2: Plaverfordwest, 1; Radnorshire, 2. The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and Ireland, and the several coun- ties, cities, and places therein, shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons for the next Parliament. XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every third year, to be accounted as aforesaid ; that then the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal, issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September next ; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from the dis- solution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in that third year. That the said several and respective sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be pro- claimed and published in every market-town within his county upon the market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock ; and shall then also publish and declare the certain d.ay of the week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the date of the writ ; and shall likewise declare the place where the election shall be made : for which purpose he shall appoint the most con- venient place for the whole county to meet in ; and shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every city, town, borough, or place within his county, where elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the Mayor, Sheriff, or other head oflicer of such city, town, borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and oflicers respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made accordingly. Xn. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and places respec- tively, shall take view of the said elections, anil shall make return into the chancery within twenty days after tlie said elections, of the per- sons elected by the greater number of electors, under their hands and seals, between him on the one part, and the electors on the other part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected shall not have power to alter the govern- ment as it is hereby settled in one single person and a Parliament. XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty of 3,000 marks of lawful English money ; the one moiety to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such per- son as will sue for the same. XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided, advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament, or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments. XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the rebellion of Ireland, shall be dis- abled and incapable for ever to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member to serve in Parliament ; as also all such who do or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion. XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or not according to these qualifi - cations, shall be null and void; and if any per- son, who is hereby made incapable, shall give his vote for election of members to serve in Par- liament, such person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate; one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to him or them who shall sue for the same. XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are persons of known integ- rity, fearing God, and of good conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years. XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to the value of £300, and not within the aforesaid exceptions, shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for counties XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Com- missioners of the Great Seal, shall be sworn be- fore they enter into their offices, truly and faith- fully to issue forth, and send abroad, writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner before expressed : and in case of neglect or failure to issue and send abroad writs accord- ingly, he or they shall for every such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains and penalties thereof. XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means hereafter 915 ENGLAND, 1653. Instrument of Government. ENGLAND, 1653. expressed ; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, the Chan- cellor, Masters, and Scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the JIayor and Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid : that if the sheriff, or other per- sons authorized, shall neglect his or their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty, shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and shall suffer the pains and pen- alties thereof. XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify the names of the several persons so returned, and of the places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto the CouncU; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine ■whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be elected : and that every person and persons being so duly elected, and being ap- proved of by the major part of the Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise. XXII. That the persons so chosen and assem- bled in manner aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the Parliament of Eng- land, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and such Parliament, in manner herein expressed. XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the ad- vice of the major part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it, sum- mon Parliaments in manner before expressed, ■which shall not be adjourned, prorogued, or dis- solved without their own consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the same. XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Par- liament, shall be presented to the Lord Protector for his consent ; and in case he shall not give his consent thereto ■svithin twenty days after they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not consented nor given satisfaction, such BiUs shall pass into and be- come laws, although he shall not give his consent thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them contrary to the matters contained in these presents. XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq. ; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon ; lieut. general Fleet- wood ; the colonels Edw. Montagu, Philip Jones, and Wm. Sydenham ; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq.. Speaker of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major, esqrs.] — or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the purposes expressed in this writing ; and upon the death or other removal of any of them, tlie Parliament shall nominate six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for every one that is dead or removed ; out of which the major part of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord Protector, of which he shall elect one ; and in case the Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of them shall supply the vacancy ; and until this choice be made, the re- maining part of the Council shall execute as fully in all things, as if tlieir number were full. And in case of corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time laeing, shall have power to hear and determine such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted bj' tlie Lord Protec- tor; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may, for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and examined as aforesaid. XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made thereby to exceed twent)'-one, and the quorum to be proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major part of the Coun- cil. XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised, settled, and established for maintain- ing of 10,000 horse and dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland, for the defence and security thereof, and also for a con- venient number of ships for guarding of the seas ; besides £300,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges of administration of jus- tice, and other expenses of the Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same altered, but by the consent of tlie Lord Protector and the Parliament. XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses aforesaid, XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved thereby 916 ENGLAND, 1653. Instrument of Government. ENGLAND, 1653. shall remain in bank for the public service, and not be employed to any other use but by con- sent of Parliament, or, in the intervals of Parlia- ment, by the Lord Protector and major part of the Council. XXX. That the raising of money for defray- ing the charge of the present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect of the present •n-ars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the consent of the major part of the Coun- cil, for preventing the disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid ; and also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament concerning the same. XXXL That the lands, tenements, rents, roy- alties, jurisdictions and hereditaments which re- main yet unsold or undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to the Com- monwealth (except the forests and chases, and the honours and manors belonging to the same ; the lands of the rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork, Kildare, and Car- low ; the lands forfeited by the people of Scot- land in the late wars, and also the lands of Pa- pists and delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his successors. Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts, tines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by authority of Parlia- ment, shall be due to the Lord Protector, and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be re- covered and prosecuted in his name. XXXn. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations shall be elective and not heredi- tary ; and upon the death of the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith elected to succeed him in the Government ; which election shall be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually sit in Coun- cil ; and, having given notice to all their members of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at least present, proceed to the election ; and, before they depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to be made in all the three nations as shall be requisite ; and the person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be. Lord Protector over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the do- minions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the children of the late King, nor any of bis line or family, be elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take care of the Government, and administer in all things as fully as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are enabled to do. XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-Gen- eral of the forces of England, Scotland and Ire- laud, shall be, and is "hereby declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of Eng- land, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for his life. XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Com- missioners of the Great Seal, the Treasurer, Ad- miral, Chief Governors of Ireland and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches, shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the intervals of Parliament, by the ap- probation of the major part of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament. XXXV. That the Christian religion, as con- tained in the Scriptures, be held forth and rec- ommended as the public profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a, provis- ion, less subject to scruple and contention, and more certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing the people, and for discovery and confutation of error, here- by, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine ; and until such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be taken away or im- peached. XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be compelled by penalties or otherwise ; but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversation. XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts ; provided this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness. XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordi- nances, and clauses in any law, statute or ordi- nance to the contrary of the aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void. XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of Archbishops and Bishops, &c.. Deans and Chapters, the lands of delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other lauds, tenements, rents and heredita- ments belonging to the Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money, by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public revenue ; and also the securities given by the public faith of the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good, and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever. XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and afterwards confirmed by Parlia- ment, shall be performed and made good to the persons concerned therein ; and that such appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for re- lief concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard and determined the next Parlia- ment, anything in this writing or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding. XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations shall take and subscribe a 917 ENGLAND, 1653. The py-otector's Government. ENGLAND, 1654-1658. solemn oath, in the presence of the Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause law and justice to be equally ad- ministered; and that he will not violate or in- fringe the matters and things contained in this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and to the best of his understanding, govern these nations according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof. XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter upon their trust, take and sub- scribe an oath, that they will be true and faith- ful in their trust, according to the best of their knowledge ; and that in the election of every successive Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward. A. D. 1654. — Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia). See Nova Scotia: A. D. 1621-1668. A. D. 1654 (April). — Incorporation of Scot- land with the Commonwealth. See Scotlakd: A. D. 1654. A. D. 1654-1658.— The Protector, his Parlia- ments and his Major-Generals. — The Humble Petition and Advice. — Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy. — " Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday, the 3d of September. . . . Immediately, under the leader- ship of old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the Instrument of Govern- ment, the constitutional basis of the existing sys- tem. By five votes, it decided to discuss ' whether the House should approve of government by a Single Person and a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of making tlie Ex- ecutive dependent on the House ; a principle, in Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to se- cure the city, and disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned the House again on the 9th day. . . . Members were called on to sign a declaration, ' not to alter the government as settled in a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some 300 signed ; the minority — about a fourth — refused and retired. . . . The Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics, suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council ; and they deliberately withheld all sup- plies for the services and the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the constitu- tion de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once. On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January 1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech full of reproaches." — F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 11. — " In 1656, the Protector called asecond Par- liament. By excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on May 25, 1657, and at once re- ceived the assent of the Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish that of tlie Council. The Pro- tector, in turn, received the right of appointing his successor, and to name the life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the place of the House of Lords. ... In accordance with the Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned ' certain persons to sit in the other House. ' A quarrel between the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [Feb. 4, 1658] dis- solved the Parliament in anger. " — S. R. Gardiner, Const. Doc's of the Puritan Revolution, pp. Ixiii- Ixiv., and 384-350. — "To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655] abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the king- dom into districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a sort of militarj^ magistrate, responsible for the subjection of his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly hos- tile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil authority. They were employed to se- cure the payment of a tax of 10 per cent., im- posed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where their estates exceeded £100 per an- num. The major-generals, in their correspon- dence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. . . . All illusion was now gone as to tlie pre- tended benelits of the civil war. It had ended iu a despotism, compared to which all the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance. For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the present decimation of a single class, whose ofEence had long been ex- piated by a composition and effaced by an act of indemnity ? or were the excessive punishments of the star-chamber so odious as the capital exe- cutions inflicted without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to erect liis high court of justice ? . . . I cannot . . . agree in the praises which liave been showered upon Cromwell for the just administration of the laws under his do- minion. That, between party and party, the or- dinary civil rights of men were fairly dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be ad- mitted that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers, though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles II. ; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation than this soldier of a common- wealth." — H. Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 10, pt. 3. — " Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by the winning cause iu a revo- lution to restore confidence and secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, ' the Constable set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a militarj' despot. . . . Never did a ruler invested with absolute power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary control." — F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, ch. 11. • — "To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were nothing to what was now imposed upon her." — J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: 918 ENGLAND, 1654-1658. Restoration of the Stuarts, ENGLAND, 1658-1660. Cromwell. — "His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern constitutionally, and to sub- stitute the empire of the laws for that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was, both by Roj'alists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by being absolute. . . . Those soldiers who would not suffer him to assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth a des- potism, moderated only by the wisdom, the so- briety and the magnanimity of the despot." — Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 1. A. D. 1655-1658. — War with Spain, alli- ance with France. — Acquisition of Dunkirk. — "Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' "War,' concluded in 1648 by the Treaty of West- phalia] was over, the struggle between France and Spain was continued with great animosity, each country striving to crush her rival and be- come the first power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the pos- session of Calais, when taken from France; France the possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell determined to ally himself with France against Spain. ... It was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain came most into collision with the interests of England. Her kings based their claims to the possession of two continents on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this monstrous claim had quite broken do wn as far as the North American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still recognizing ' no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or colonization of at least the southern half of the New World. . . . While war was now pro- claimed with Spain, a treaty of peace was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agree- ing to banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory (Oct. 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a league, offensive and defensive (March 33, 1657), Crom- well undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the occu- pation of these towns Cromwell intended to con- trol the trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with another triumph by sea." 'This was Blake's last exploit. He attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico, in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Tenerilie, and silenced the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring ' ' the siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills among which it was fought ; the defeat was mainly owing to the courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' . . . Ten days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys of a town they thought ' un si bon morceau ' (June 35). "— B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, King and Commonwealth, ch. 15. Also in.- T. Carlyle, Oliver CromicelVs Letters and Speeches, hk. 9, speech 5 and bk. 10, letters 153-157.— J. Campbell, Naval Hist, of Gt. B., eh. 15 (». 3). — J. Waylen, The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk, pp. 173-273.— W. H. Dixon, Robert Blake, ch. 9-10. — D. Hannay, Admiral Blake, ch. 9-11. — See, also, France: A. D. 1655-1658. A. D. 1658-1660.- The fall of the Protector- ate and Restoration of the Stuarts. — King Charles II. — When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September, 1658 — the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at Worcester — his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Pro- tector, and succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or per- sonal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a new Parliament (Jan. 27, 1659), which recognized and confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful op- position, of uncompromising republicans and secret royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous action once more as a political power in the state, subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other com- manders. Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his father's battalions. ' ' He was used by the army as an instrument for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 2'3], and was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to re- sume its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely stifled derision and execration of the whole na- tion, the supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not last. On the day on which the Long Parliament re- vived, revived also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House of Commons were closed by military violence [Oct. 13] ; and a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the direction of affairs. " The troops stationed in Scotland, under Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these trans- actions, and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was now 919 ENGLAND, 1658-1660. Charles II . " the Merry Monarch.^ ENGLAND, 1660-1685. Induced to interfere. He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government, declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement was everywhere wel- comed and encouraged by popular demonstra- tions of delight. The army in England lost courage and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was the recog- nized master of the realm. Nobody knew his intentions — himself, perhaps, as little as any — and it was not until after a period of protracted suspense that he declared himself for the conven- ing of a new and free Parliament, in the place of the Rump — -which had again resumed its sit- tings — for the settlement of the state. "The result of the elections was such as might have been expected from the temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The Presbyterians formed the majority. . . . The new Parliament, which, having been called without the royal writ, is more accurately de- scribed as a Convention, met at "Westminster [April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by force. Both Houses in- stantly invited the King to return to his country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A gallant fleet convoyed him from Hol- land to the coast of Kent. "When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could be found who was not weeping with de- light. The journey to London was a continued triumph." — Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 1. — The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back their ejected kings of the faith- less race of Stuarts was embodied in a Declara- tion which Charles sent over from "Our Court at Breda " in April, and which was read in Parliament with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limita- tions only as the Parliament should think fit to make. AH delicate questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while diminish- ing his responsibility ; and though fully asserting the ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of State." — F. P. Guizot, Hist, of Bich'd Cromwell and tlie Restoi-a- tion, hie. 4 («. 2). Also ik : G. Burnet, Hut. of My Own Time, bk. 2, 1660-61.— Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of the Re- hellion, hk. 16 (o. 6). — D. ]\Iasson, Life of Milton, V. 5, hk. 3.— J. Corbett, Monk. cli. 9-14. A. D. 1660-1685. — The Merry Monarch. — ' ' There never were such profligate times in Eng- land as under Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in his Court at "Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies), drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a fashion to call Charles the Second ' The Merry Monarch. ' Let me try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry proceeding was — of course — to de- clare that he was one of the greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone, like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament, in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that old disputed ' tonnage and poundage ' which had been so bravely fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle, and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to work to see what was to be done to those per- sons (they were called Regicides) who had "been concerned in making a martyr of the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed ; that is to say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and another oflicer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters, a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived with ap- palling cruelty. . . . Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished the evidence against Strafford, and was one of the most staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and ordered for execu- tion. . . . These merry scenes were succeeded by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anni- versary of the late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, were torn out of their graves in Westminster Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face for half a moment ! Think, after you have read this reign, what England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it, like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared, either, though they had been most excellent women. The base clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been buried in the Abbey, and — to the eternal disgrace of England — they were thrown into a pit, together with the mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral Blake. . . . The whole Court was a great flaunt- ing crowd of debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine. and afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most pow- erful of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the worst things I know is, that actuallv she does seem to have been fond of the King, the first Duke of St. Albans was this orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry waiting-lady, whom the King 920 ENGLAND, 1660-1685. Savoy Conference. ENGLAND, 1662-1665. created Duchess of Portsmouth, became the Duke of Richmond. Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money, made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers, and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this action, he would have received his just deserts." — C. Dickens, Child's Hist, of Eng. , ch. 35. A. D. i66i. — Acquisition of Bombay. See India: A. D. 1G00-1T(«. A. D. i66i. — The Savoy Conference. — "The Restoration had been the joint work of Episco- palian and Presbj'terian ; would it be possible to reconcile them on this question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government] ? The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise, for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in doubt; but he knew tliat Clarendon was the sworn friend of the Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King and Parliament, so King and Church were in- separable in the English mind ; that indeed the return of the King was the restoration of the Church even more than it was the restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present Presby- terian majority however it was necessary to tem- porise. The former incumbents of Church liv- ings were restored, and the Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the Churcli ; but in other respects the Presbyterians were care- fully kept in play ; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains, and even attending their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles "took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit tlie validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing his preference for the Anglican Church, as ' the best fence God hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that neverthe- less, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to tlie alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyte- rians, one of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishop- ric. Charles then proposed to choose an equal number of learned divines of both persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy ; meanwhile no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice. The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration, . . . and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge. Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy in se- curing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was at once (De- cember 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met the masic was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail. Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at union having fallen through, the Government had their hands free ; and their intentions were speedily made plain." — O. Airy, The Eng. Bestoration and Louis XIV., ch. 7. — "'The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the 25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it contained, to consult respect- ing the exceptions against it, and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and re- store to the Church unity and peace ; the instru- ment appointed ' the Master's lodgings in the Savoy ' as the place of meeting. . . . The Com- missioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April. . . . The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described, actually passed the House of Com- mons on the 9th of July, about a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were, by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached." — J. Stoughton, Hist, of Religion in Eng., v. 3, ch. 5. Also in: E. Calamy, Nonconformists' Memo- rial, introd., sect. 3. — W. Orme, Life and Times of Richard Baxter, ch. 7. A. D. 1662. — The sale of Dunkirk. — "Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles II.] would have sought even in the in- fernal regions the gold which his subjects meas- ured out to him with too parsimonious a hand. . . . [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He asked twelve million francs ; he fell at last to five millions, and the treaty was signed Oct. 27, 1663. It was time ; the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, In- formed of the negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk. Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword." — H. JIartin, Hist, of France : Age of Louis XIV. , trans, by M. L. Booth, ch. 4 (». 1). A. D. 1662-1665. — The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists. — The 921 ENGLAND, 1663-1665 Act of Uniformity. ENGLAND, 1668-1670. failure of the Savoy Conference "was the con- clusion which had been expected and desired. Chai'les had already summoned the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the Savoy. . . . The act of uniformity followed [passed by the Commons July 9, 1661 ; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordi- nation of Jlinisters, and no other, should be used in all places of public worship; and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set form of words, their ' unfeigned assent and consent to everythmg contained and pre- scribed in it. ' . . . The act of uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the church to its former discipline and doctrine ; but if such was the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda, they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them expectations which it was never meant to fulfil." — J. Lingard, Hist, of Eng., V. 11, ch. 4. — "This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who could not con- form, no longer time than till Bartholomewday, August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. . . . This was an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians relate, with tragical excl.iraations, that between three and four score bishops were driven at once into the island of Sardinia by the African van- dals ; tliat 200 ministers were banished by Fer- dinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, liut )iad no room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and that even by their brethren who professed the same faith them- selves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into the wide world without any visi- ble way of subsistence. Not so much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did, to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. . . . The ejected ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and obscurity. . . . The act of uniformity took place August the 24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting pri- vately on the king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but they re- fused, lest they should make way for the tolera- I ion of the Papists, whom they understood the lung intended to include in it. . . . Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th of June, an act against private meetings, called the Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after was made a law, viz. : 'That every person above sixteen years of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise of re- ligion, in other manner than is the practice of the church of England, where there are five persons more than the household, shall for the first of- fence, by a justice of peace be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £.5, and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to some of the American plan- tations, excepting New England or Virginia.' . . . In the year 1665 the plague broke out" — and the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labour- ing to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render their case incompara- bly harder than it was before, by putting upon them a certain oath [' that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king.'&c], which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. . . . When this act came out, those ministers who had any maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not corpora- tions. " — E. Calamy, The Nonconformist's Me- morial, in trod., sect. 4-6. Also in : J. Stoughton, Hist, of Religion in Eng., V. 3, ch. 6-9.— D. Neal, Hist, of the Puri- tans, V. 4, ch. 6-7. A. D. 1663. — The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others. See North Carolina: A. D. 1663-1670. A. D. 1663. — The King's charter to Rhode Island. See Rhode Island: A. D. 1660-1663. A. D. 1664. — The conquest of New Nether- land (Nev7 York). See New York: A. D, 1664. A. D. 1664-1665. — The first refractory symp- toms in Massachusetts. See Massachusetts: A. D. 1660-1665. A. D. 1665. — The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley. See New Jebset: A. D. 1664-1667. A. D. 1665-1666.— War with Holland re- newred. — The Dutch fleet in the Thames. See Netherl.\nds (Holland): A. D. 166.5-1666. A. D. 1668.— The Triple Alliance with Hol- land and Sweden against Louis XIV. See Netherlands (Holl.^nd) : A. D. 1668. A. D. 1668. — Cession of Acadia (Nova Sco- tia) to France. See Nova Scotia: A. D. 1621- 1668. A. D. 1668-1670.— The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King. — His begging of bribes from Louis XIV. — His betrayal of Hol- land. — His breaking of the Triple Alliance. — In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embar- rassed by the king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. . . . But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of ex- tinguishing the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary assistance from France in the beginning of his reign ; and, though his pre- 922 ENGLAND, 1668-1670. TIte King in French Bay. ENGLAND 1672-1673. vious efforts to cultivate the friendship of Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events, he resolved to renew the experiment. Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. . . . About the end of the year the communications between the two [irinces became more open and confidential; French money, or the promise of French money, was received by the English ministers ; the nego- tiation began to assume a more regular form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given, that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge, or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the proceedings Charles received an important communication from his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient and zealous son of the Church of England ; but Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation had shaken his religious cre- dulity, and the result of the inquiry was a con- viction that it became his duty to reconcile him- self with the Church of Rome. He was not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose him ; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in communion with the es- tablished church, while he attended at the Catho- lic service in private. But, to his surprise, he learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct : a similar answer was returned to the same question from the pope ; and James imme- diately took his resolution. He communicated to the king in private that he was determined to embrace the Catholic faith ; and Charles without hesitation replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas Clifford. . . . The meeting was held in the duke's closet. Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of being compelled to profess a re- ligion which he did not approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with safety and success. They ad- vised him to communicate his intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question, — was Charles sincere or not? . . . He was the most accomplished dissembler in his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character to sus- pect that his real object was to deceive both his brother and the king of France. . . . Now, how- ever, the secret negotiation proceeded with greater activity ; and lord Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any insurrection which might be provoked by his intended conversion, and offered the co-cp- cration of England in the projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual subsidy during the continuation of hostilities. " On the advice of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention to enter publicly the Romish church and thtis provoke a national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted, and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670, through the agency of Charles' sister, Hen- rietta, the duchess of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. " Of this treaty, . . . though much was afterwards said, little was certainly known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the negotiators, observed an im- penetrable secrecy. AVhat became of the copy transmitted to France is unknown ; its counter- part was confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still in the keeping of his descen- dant, the lord Clifford of Chudleigh. The prin- cipal articles were : 1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time as the most Christian king should judge proper. 3. That to enable the king of England to suppress any insurrection which might be oc- casioned by his conversion, the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three months, the other of six months, after the ratifi- cation of the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force of 6,000 men, if . . . neces- sary. ... 4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of England should aid nira with all his power in the acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should make war on the united provinces, and that neither should conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and consent of his ally. " — J. Lingard, Hist. of Eng., ». 11, ch. 6. Also in : H. Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng. , ch. 11. — O. Airy, Tlie Eng. ReMoration and Louis XIV., ch. 16.— G. Burnet, Hist, of My Own Time, bk. 3 (d. 1). A. D. 1671. — The Cabal. — "It was remarked that the committee of council, established for foreign affairs, was entirely changed ; and that Prince Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole secret was intrusted to five persons, Clif- ford, Ashley [afterwards Earl of Shaftesburj'], Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels." — D. Hume, Hist. of Eng., ch. 65 («. 6). — See, also, Cabinet, The English. A. D. 1672-1673. — The Declaration of In- dulgence and the Test Act. — " It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the party in the Royal Council which represented the old- Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on their desire for a toleration of the Nonconform- ists. The announcement of the King's Catholi- cism was therefore deferred. . . . His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to out- wit his Parliament. A large subsidy was de- manded for the fleet, under the pretext of up- holding the Triple Alliance, and the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were 923 ENGLAND, 1673-1673. DecCaration of Indulgence, ENGLAND, 1678-1679. adjourned. Fresh supplies were obtained by clos- ing the Exchequer, and suspending — under Clifford's advice — the payment of either prin- cipal or interest on loans advanced to the public treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the goldsmiths of London ; but it was fol- lowed in 1672 by one yet more startling — the Declaration of indulgence. By virtue of his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered ' that all manner of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort of Nonconformists or rec- usants should be from that day suspended,' and gave liberty of public worsliip to all dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their religion only in private houses. . . . The Declaration of Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. ... It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust. . . . There was a general sus- picion that a plot was on foot for the establisli- ment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head — a party which sympathized with the Non- conformists, but looked on it as its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the House were at one. The Commons resolved ' that penal statutes in matters ecclesi- astical cannot be suspended but by consent of Parliament,' and refused supplies till tlie Declara- tion was recalled. The King yielded ; but the Declaration was no sooner recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses without opposition, wliich required from every one in the civil and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a reception of the sacrament according to tlie rites of the Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resis- tance, and Buckingham talked fliglitily about bringing the army to London, l5ut Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the ' great plan ' through was at an end, and pressed Cliarles to yield. . . . Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a Catholic, and re- signed his office as Lord High Admiral. . . . Clifford, too, . . . owned to being a Catholic, and . . . laid down his staff of office. Tlieir resignation was followed by that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service of the Crown. . . . The resignations were lield to have proved the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at an end." — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of Eng., ch. 9, sect. 3. — "It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet the construction of it, although it did not exclude from office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have defeated it; but the first of tliese classes for the present submitted to the inconvenience, from tbe horror which they entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some relief would be afforded for this per- sonal sacrifice in the cause of a common Protes- tantism. Thus the passing of an Act, which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two large sections of the community, is to be at- tributed to the course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the sufferers." — J. Stoughton, Hist, of Religion in Eng., «. 3, ch. 11. Also in: D. Neal, ITist. of the Puritans, v. 4, ch. 8, and v. 5, ch. 1. — J. Collier, Ecclesiastical Hist, of Gt. Britain, pt. 2, bk. 9 (». 8). A. D. 1672-1674.— Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland. Sec Nethek- LAKDS (HoLLAl^D) : A. D. 1672-1674. A. D. 1673. — Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch. See New York: A. D. 1673. A. D. 1674.— Peace with the Dutch.— Treaty of Westminster.— Recovery of New York. See Netherlands (Holland) : A. D. 1674. A. D. 1675-1688. — Concessions to France in Newfoundland. See Newfoundland: A. D. 1660-1688. A. D. 1678-1679.— The Popish Plot.— "There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused a panic throughout all Eng- land. A preacher of low character, named Titus Gates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly afterwards [Oct. 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and wlien Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York, from Parlia- ment. After this no Catholic sat in either House for a hundred and fifty 3'ears. But worse fol- lowed. Gates became popular, and finding tale- bearing successful, he and other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in 1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Dauby, did all he could to fan the flame." — A. B. Buckle}', Hist, of Eng. for Beginners, ch. 19.— "The capital and the whole nation went mad witli hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose some- thing of their edge, were sharpened anew. Everj'where justices were busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a state of siege. The trainbands were vmder arms aU night. Preparations were made for barricading the great thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets. Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins." — Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 3 (?i. 1). — "It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare, or locked up in an un- Isnown tongue, many honest people, struck with 924 ENGLAND, 1678-1679. The Popish Plot. ENGLAND, 1679. the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into short-hand that they might not be des- titute of its consolations in the hour of calamity. ... It was about the year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet Street. . . . They were terrorists and spread alarm with great effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof, was recommended as a security against assassination at the hands of the Papists ; and the particular kind of life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was intro- duced." — G. Roberts, Life of Monnmuth, ch. 5 (v. 1), — "And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper house, a sombre prose- cution of the catholic lords Arundel, Petre, Staf- ford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman, Ire- land, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were implicated by the indefatigable de- nunciations of Titus Gates and Bedloe. Un- happily, these courts of justice, desiring, in common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing, became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the Frencli ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent ; they were thoroughly cowed." — A. Carrel, Hist, of the Counter-Devolu- tion in Eng.,pt.\,ch. A. — "Although, . . . upon a review of this truly shocking transaction, we may be fairly justified ... in imputing to the greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders; yet the pro- ceedings on the popish plot must always be con- sidered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not equal, shares." — C. J. Pox, Hist, of tlie Early Part of the Reign of James II., introd. ch. — "In this dreadful scene of wicked- ness, it is difiicult not to assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he certainly availed himself of the revelations of Gates, to work up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent horrors. ... In ex- tenuation of the delusion of the populace, some- thing may be offered. The defamation of half a century had made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation, artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication, too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion ; and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in whicli the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had long been generally known, and was about this time made public, had dis- covered that Charles was in the pay of France. These, with several other circumstances, had in- flamed the imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A dreadful sometliing (and not the less dreadful because its precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally apprehended. . . . For their supposed part in the plot, ten lay- men and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were condemned, but not exe- cuted. Some died in prison, and some were par- doned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were executed with horrible severity. " — C. Butler, Hist. Memmrs of the Eng. Catholics, ch. 33, sect. 3 (V. 2). Also in: Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, ch. 89 (». 3). A. D. 1679 (May).— The Habeas Corpus Act. — " Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree, has place in almost every gov- ernment, except in that of Great Britain ; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to the present Parliament ; a merit which makes some atonement for the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in other particulars, be- trayed them. The great charter had laid the foundation of this valuable part of liberty ; the petition of right had renewed and extended it ; but some provisions were still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus, which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act it was prohibited to send any one to a prison beyond sea. No judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days ; and so proportionably for greater distances ; every pris- oner must be indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to trial in the subse- quent term. And no man, after being enlarged by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence." — D. Hume, Hist, of Eng., ch. 67 (». 6). — "The older remedies serving as a safe- guard against unlawful imprisonment, were — 1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his appearance before the court when required, and in token of such under- taking he held him by the hand (' le prit par le main'). 2. The writ ' De odio et atia,' i. e., of hatred and malice, which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated. ... It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not. ... 3. The writ ' De horaine rcplegiando,'orreplevying aman, that is, deliver- ing him out on security to answer what may be objected against him. A writ is, originally, a royal writing, either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come, and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteroe clausse,' a sealed letter ad- dressed to a particular person ; such writs were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery. The most usual instrument of pro- tection, however, against arbitrary imprison- ment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so called from its beginning with the words, ' Habeas cor- pus ad subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence of all others. This is an old writ of the common law, and must 925 ENGLAND, 1679. Habeas Corpus Act, ENGLAND, 1679. be prayed for in any of the Superior courts of common law. . . . But this ■writ . . . proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual protec- tion against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to a release from Imprison- ment unless suflScient cause be shown for his de- tention, was fuUy canvassed in the first years of the reign of Charles I. . . . The parliament en- deavoured to prevent such arbitrary imprison- ment by passing the 'Petition of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner . . . should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found unavailing against the malevo- lent interpretations put by the judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be brought before the court to determine whether there is ground for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his re- lease. Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English subjects from arbitrary de- tention was not ultimately established in full practical efficiency until the passing of the statute of Charles II. , commonly called the ' Habeas Corpus Act. ' " — E. Pischel, The English CoTutitu- tion, bk. 1, ch. 9. Also in : Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of Eng., bk. 3, ch. 8. — H. J. Stephen, Commentaries, bk. 5, ch. 13, sect. 5 (v. 4). The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679: Whereas great Delays have been used by Sher- iffs, Gaolers and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed criminal Matters, in mak- ing Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to their great Charges and Vexation. II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus di- rected unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, IMinis- ter, or other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the imdor Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or Keepers; that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve- pence per Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, accord- ing to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or Imprisonment, un- less the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing ; and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not longer. III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ, (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such Writs shall be marked in this manner. Per Statutum Tricesimo Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so committed or detained (other than Persons con- vict, or in Execution by legal Process) or any one on his or their Behalf, to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or any one of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench, or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Com- mitment and Detainer, or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are de- tained, are hereby authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf, at- tested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be, returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron, of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the OlBcer or Officers, his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively before limited, bring such Prisoner 926 ENGLAND, 1679. Habeas Corpus Act. ENGLAND, 1679. or Prisoners before the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons, or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made return- able, and in case of his Absence, before any of [hem, with the Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and Detainer. (7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be brought before them the said Lord Chan- cellor, or Lord Keeper, or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recogni- zance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance iu the Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next Assizes, Sessions, or genera! Gaol-Delivery, of and for such County, City or Place, where the Com- mitment was, or where the Offence was com- mitted, or in such other Court where the said Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and then shall certify the said "Writ with the Return thereof, and the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court, where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters, or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable. IV. Provided always, and be it enacted. That if any Person shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms after his Imprison- ment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his Enlarge- ment, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in Pursuance of this Act. V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners, ac- cording to the Command of the said Writ, within the respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver, to the Per- son so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained, shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (3.) And for the second Of- fence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office. (3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection, Priviledge, Injunc- tion, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution, by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted or allowed, or any more than one Impar- lance. (4.) And any Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient Conviction to bring tlie Offi- cers or Person within the said Penalty for the Second Offence. VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated Commitments for the same offence ; (3.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That no Person or Persons, whicli shall be de- livered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same Offence, by any Per- son or Persons whatsoever, other tlian by the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they shall be bound by Recognizance to ap- pear, or other Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any Person or Persons de- livered or set at large as aforesaid, or be know- ingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in the Warrant or War- rants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be re- covered as aforesaid. VII. Provided always, and be it further en- acted, That if any Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed iu the Warrant of Com- rnitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term, Ses- sions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-De- livery after such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and Termi- ner, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the Prisoner, or any one iu his Behalf, to set at Liberty the Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery. (3.) And if any Per- son or Persons committed as aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term, Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be ac- quitted, he shall be discharged from his Imprison- ment. VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to the Law for such other Suit. 927 ENGLAND, 1679. Habeas Corpus Act. ENGLAND, 1679. IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That if any Person or Per- sons, Subjects of this Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or sup- posed Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed from the said Prison and Custod}', into the Custody of any other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus, or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is de- livered to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4. ) Or where the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or Dis- charge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6. ) And if any Person or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or AVarrants, as the Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall suffer & in- cur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act before- mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence, re- spectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the Party grieved. X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That it shall and may be lawful to and for any Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of Chan- cery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Va- cation time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment or De- tainer, or upon Oath made that such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, to be recovered in manner aforesaid. XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That an Habeas Corpus ac- cording to the true Intent and meaning of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places, within the Kingdom of England, Do- minion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding. XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this King- dom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall or may be sent Pris- oner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter shall be within or without the Domin- ions of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if any of the said Subjects now is, or here- after shall be so imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of this Act, an Action or Actions of False Im- prisonment, in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained, im- prisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons, that shall frame, con- trive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Im- prisonment or Transportation, or shall be advis- ing, aiding or assisting in the same, or any of them. (5. ) And the Plaintiff in every such Ac- tion, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs, besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be le.ss than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay, Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Com- mand, nor no Injunction, Protection, or Privi- ledge whatsoever, nor any more than one Impar- lance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of tlie Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court, as shall be thought in justice nec- essary, for special Cause to be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or transport any Person or Per- sons contrary to this Act, or be any ways advis- ing, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thence- forth to bear any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto be- longing. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, or- dained, and Provided in and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, oi Disabilities, or any of them. XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation, or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement, altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such Contract. XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose, such Person or Persons may be trans- ported into any Parts beyond the Seas ; This Act, or any thing therein contained to the con- trary notwithstanding. XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing heroin contained, shall be deemed, con- strued, or taken to extend to the Imprisonment ot any Person before the first Day of June, One Tliousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing advised, procured, or otherwise done, rehiting to such Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. 928 ENGLAND, 1679. Exclusion Bill. ENGLAND, 1679-1681. XVI. Provided also. That if any Person or Persons, at any time resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or foreign Plan- tations of the King, his Heirs or Successors, where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive such Tryal, in such man- ner as the same might Iiave been used before the making this Act ; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted. That no Person or Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be sued or im- pleaded for the same within two Years at the most after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison ; and if he shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery out of Prison, which shall first happen. XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back to receive his Tryal there; (3.) Be it en- acted. That after the Assizes proclaimed for that Coimty where the Prisoner is detained, no Per- son shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do wliat to Justice shall appertain. XIX. Provided nevertheless. That after the Assizes are ended, any Personor Persons detained may have his or her Habeas Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act. XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That if any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful for such Defendants to plead the gen- eral Issue, that they are not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which ]\Iatter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had suf- ficiently pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action. XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty -Treason or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace that committed the Persons, and have the E.xaminations before them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County ; (2.) Be it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged as accessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony, or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty- Treason or Felony, which Petty-Treason or ^^ 929 Felony, shall be plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such Per- son shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act, or in any other manner than they might have been before the making of this Act. A. D. 1679 (June).— The Meal-tub Plot.— "Dangerfleld, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of the papists. He . . . got into all companies, and mixed with the hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of commis- sions, and that a new form of government was to be set up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was very kindly used by many of that side ; so that a whisper run about town, that some extraor- dinary thing would quicldy break out: and he having some coiTespondence with one colonel Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived letters, and laid them in a dark comer of his room : and then some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for some for- bidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was made of a dis- covery : but upon inquiry it appeared the letters were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected ; so they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came to be called the meal-tub plot. . . . This was a great disgrace to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the countenance he had given him." — G. Burnet, Hist, of My Own Time, bk. 3, 1679. A. D. 1679-1681.— The Exclusion Bill.— ' ' Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and evi- dent also that he had been engaged in the more real and undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne, long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the exclusion bill, too bold, in- deed, for the spirit of the country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly ship- wrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so vigorous would have been successful. . . . But the zeal they showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [Jan. 34, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration ; an event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeach- ments commenced by their predecessors, and car- rying a measure long in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading of which was carried, May 31, 1679, by 307 to 128]. ENGLAND, 1679-1681. Whigs and Tories. ENGLAND, 1681-1683. Their dissolution put a stop to this ; and in the next parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed the bill, without a division, Oct., 1680]. . . . The bill of exclusion . . . provided that the imperial crown of England should descend to and be enjoyed by such per- son or persons successively during the life of the duke of York as would have inherited or en- joyed the same in case he were naturally dead. . . . But a large part of the opposition had un- fortunately other objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the earl of Shaftes- bury, "they broke away more and more from the line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction Involved themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of Shaftes- bury brought forward that unconstitutional and most impolitic scheme of the duke of Mon- mouth's succession [James, duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pre- tence of personal excellence or public services, against a princess of known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a belief of Monmouth's legitimacy." — H. Hallam, Co7ist. Hist, of Eng., ch. 13. Also m: A.. C&\'k\, Hist, of the Counter-Rem- lution in Eng., pt. 2, ch. 1. — G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, ch. 4-8 (v. 1). — G. Mwvnet, Hist, of My Own Time, bk. 3., 1679-81.— Sir W. Temple, Memoirs, pt. 3 {Works, v. 2). A. D. i68o. — Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names. — "Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely ani- mated against each other. The very names by which each party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and rancour which jsre- vailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer, ap- pellations which were soon forgotten, this year is remarkable for being the epoch of the well- known epithets of Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material difference, this island has been so long divided. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by tlie name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the appellation of Tory was affixed : and after this manner these foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use." — D. Hume, Hist, of Eng., ch. 68 (». 6).— "The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose, is given in ' A New Ballad ' (Narcissus Luttrell's Collection) ; — The word Tory's of Irish Extraction, 'Tis a Legacy that they have left here The)' came here in their brogues, And have acted like Rogues, In endeavouring to learn us to swear." — J. Grego, Hist, of Parliamentary Elections, p. 36. Also in: G. W. Cooke, Hist, of Party, v. 1, ch. 2. — Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 2. — For the origin of the name of the Whig party, see Whigs (Whiqgamoks) ; also, R.\.pp.uiees. A. D. 1681-1683.— The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs. — The Rye-house Plot. — " Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory temper was re- warded with insult and violence ; and now that he saw his end accomplished, he suddenlj' dis- solved the Houses in April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost uni- versal burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King ; his declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities solemnly decided that ' no religion, no law, no fault, no forfeiture ' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary succession. . . . The Duke of York returned in triumph to St. James's. . . . Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was at once arrested. . . . Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger, plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City, where he boasted that ten thousand ' brisk boys ' were ready to ap- pear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But tlieir delays drove him to flight. . . . The flight of Shaftesbury proclaimed the tri- umph of the King. His wonderful sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in arms, and the more des- perate spirits who had clustered around him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his brother as they passed the Rye- house [a Hertfordshire farm house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by sui- cide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683 the Constitutional oppo- sition which had held Charles so long in check lay crushed at his feet. ... On the very day when the crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament, coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with contempt. He died un- expectedly, early in February, 1685, and his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the tliroue, as James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed to him. — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of Eng., ch. 9, sect. 5-6. 930 ENGLAND, 1681-1683. Monmouth^s Rebellion. ENGLAND, 1685. Also in : G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, eh. 8-10 (j). 1).— D. Hume, Hist, of Eng., eh. 68-69 (v. 6).— G. W. Cooke, Hist, of Party, v. 1, eh. 6-11. A. D. 1685. — Accession of James II. A. D. 1685 (February). — The new King pro- claims his religion. — "The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the liost was elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The Roman Catholics fell on their knees : the Protestants hurried out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace , and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by Popish divines." — Lord Macaulay, Hist, if Eng. , ch. 4 (». 2). A. D. 1685 (May— July).— Monmouth's Re- bellion. — "The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May . . . was almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the Whig influence. . . . The apparent tri\imph of the King and the Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in Holland. Among them was Mon- mouth and the Earl of Argyle, son of that Mar- quis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I. 's reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at Am- sterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of lofty and moderate views, also re- paired. National jealousy prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions were determined on, — the one under Argyle, who hoped to find an array ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England. Ar- gyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. . . . Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of his fellow leaders. . . . His army disbanded. He was him- self taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibi- tion of admirable constancy, was beheaded. . . . A week before the final dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England [at Lyme, June 11], He was well received in the West. He had not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the com- mon people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even the strongest Whigs dis- believed the story of his legitimacy, and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. . . . Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there received with enthusi- asm, and, vainly thinking to attract the nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his re- ception at Bridgewater less flattering. But diffi- culties already began to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that, although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was still obliged to send away many volunteers ; the militia were closing in upon him in all directions ; Bristol had been seized by the Duke of Beau- fort, and the regular army under Feversham and Churchill were approaching." After feebly at- tempting several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire, Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. " The Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of Sedgemoor. " Monmouth was advised to under- take a night surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The night was not unfit- ting for such an enterprise, for the mist was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known as "the Sussex Rhine," which his cav- alry could not cross, and behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the enterprise. "Mon- mouth saw that the day was lost, and with the love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed insurrection. . . . Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the neighbour- hood of Ringwood. " Monmouth petitioned ab- jectly for his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July. "The failure of this insur- rection was followed by the most terrible cruel- ties. Feversham returned to London, to be flat- tered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier, all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter pleasantry were called Kirke 's ' Lambs, ' from the emblem of their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are said by some to have been put to death the week after the battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court." — J. F. Bright, Hist, of Eng., period 2, pp. 764-768. — "The number of Mon- mouth's men killed is computed by some at 2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends the wretched fugitives who were massacred In ditches, corn- fields, and other hiding places, the following day."— C. J. Fox, Hist, of the Early Part of the Reign of James II. , ch. 3. Also in: G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, ch. 13-28 {V. 1-2). A. D. 1685 (September).— The Bloody As- sizes. — "Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will last as long as our race and lan- guage. ... At Winchester the Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not been the theatre of war; but many of the van- quished rebels had, like their leader, fled thither. " Two among these had been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceed- ing was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical 931 ENGLAND, 1685. The Bloody Assizes. ENGLAND, 1687. treason of the concealment. She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the part of the judge ; the jury was bullied into a verdict of guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by tlie liend on the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading. No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jef- freys or his fit master, the king. "In Hamp- shire Alice Lisle was the only victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet ; and this inno- vation seemed to the multitude to indicate a bloody purpose. . . . More than 300 prisoners were to be tried. The work seemed heavy ; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty. Twenty-nine persons, who put tliemselves on their country and were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester Jeffreys pro- ceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, com- paratively few persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most fearful ven- geance. In this county two hundred and thirty- three prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the green of every large village which had furnished Mon- mouth with soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or Iieads and quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the traveller sick with horror. . . . The Chief Justice was all himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that many thought him drunk from morning to night. . . . Jeffreys boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his predecessors together since the Conquest. . . . Yet those rebels who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of the survi- vors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable to bring home the cliarge of high treason were convicted of misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less terrible than that which Oates had undergone. . . . The number of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on persons who enjoyed favour at court. The con- ditions of the gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian island. ... It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average, each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry competition for grants. . . . And now Jeffreys had done his work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. . . . But at the court Jeffreys was cor- dially welcomed. He was a judge after his master's own heart. James had watched the cir- cuit with interest and delight. ... At a later period, when all men of all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate them- selves by throwing the blame on each other." — Lord Macaulay, Bist. of Eng., ch. 5. Also dj: Sir James Mackintosh, Hist, of the B£iwlution in Eng., ch. 1. — Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, ch. 100 (». 3). — G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, ch. 29-81 («. 2). — See, also, Taunton: A. D. 1685. A. D. 1685-1686. — Faithless and tyrannical measures against the New England colonies. See Connecticut: A. D. 1685-1687; and Massa- chusetts: A. D. 1671-1686. A. D. 1685-1689. — The Despotism of James II. in Scotland. See Scotland: A. D. 1681- 1689. A. D. 1686.— The Court of High Commis- sion revived. — "James conceived the design of employing his authority as head of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of the Catholic Church. . . . He, indeed, consid- ered the ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,' said he to Barillon, ' has permitted that all the laws made to establish Protestantism now serve as a foun- dation for my measures to re-establish true re- ligion, and give me a right to exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes pos- sess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their domin- ions.' He found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and re-affirming the aboli- tion of the Court of High Commission], under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to their perni- cious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on controverted questions." — Sir James Mackin- tosh, Hist, of the Revolution in Eng., ch. 3. Also ln: D. Neal, Hist, of the Puritans, v. 5, ch. 3. A. D. 1686. — The consolidation of New England under a royal Governor-General. See New England: A. D. 1686. A. D. 1687.— Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power. — " The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or other was rcijuired, as they dared not yet pro- ceed upon the royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the tests under another form before the court of king's bench. This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it might consider whether the 932 ENGLAND, 1687. Trial of the Seven Bishops, ENGLAND, 1687-1688. king had the right of exempting particular sub- jects from the formalities. . . . The king . . . closeted himself with the judges one hy one, dis- missed some, and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' sa_ys an historian, 'and scandal- ously incompetent, ' to acknowledge his dispens- ing power. . . . The judges of the king's bench, after a trial, . . . declared, almost in the very language used by the crown counsel : — 1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes ; 2. That the laws of England are the king's laws ; 3. That therefore it is an inseparable preroga- tive in the kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular cases, and upon particu- lar necessary reasons ; 4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent upon all, 5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the king by the people, but the an- cient remains of thj sovereign power and pre- rogative of the kings of England, which never yet was taken from them, nor can be. The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the respect always felt by the English peo- ple for the decisions of the higher courts, to ex- empt all his catholic subjects from the obliga- tions of the test. And upon this, it became no longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions and ofBces those whose dismissal had been demanded by parliament. ... To ob- tain or to retain certain employments, it was nec- essary to be of the same religion with the king. Papists replaced in the army and in the admin- istration all those who had pronounced at all energetically for the maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit during the last session of parliament, again resumed fa- vour." — A. Carrel, Hist, of the Counter- Jievolutio7i ill Eng. , ch. 3. Also en: J. Stoughton, Hist, of Religion in Eng., V. 4, ch. 4. A. D. 1687-1688.— Declarations of Indul- gence. — Trial of the Seven Bishops. — "Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James en- deavoured, under another form, to remove ob- stacles from Romanists. He announced an In- dulgence. He began in Scotland by issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a Proc- lamation granting relief to scrupulous con- sciences. Hereby he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of them amounted to nothing ; to the Romanists it was complete. ... On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English Privy Council his intention to pro- rogue Parliament, and to grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution (since that was im- practicable) to protect them in the free exercise of their religion ; also promising to protect the Established Church : then he annulled a number of Acts of Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists, authorised Roman Catho- lics and Protestant Dissenters to perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament imposing any religious test for civil or military ofBces. This declaration was then notoriously illegal and unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in England, but with small encouragement. ... On the 37th of April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence for England. . . . On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the offici- ating ministers, on two successive Sundays — namely, on the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of June in the country ; and desired the Bishops to circulate this Declara- tion through their dioceses. Hitherto tlie Bishops and Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedi- ence to the sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures — now they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a vio- lation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On the 12th of May, at Lam- beth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that the Declaration ought not to be read. On Fri- day, the 18th of May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was held at Lam- beth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting, disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, . . . but stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical — that the Decla- ration was therefore illegal — and could not be solemnly published by the petitioners in the House of God and during divine service. This paper was signed by Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The Archbishop had long been for- bidden to appear at Court, therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the King, who read the document and pro- nounced it libellous [and seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday, the 20tli of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The Dissenters and Church Lay- men sided with the Clergy. On the following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England. James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth to a son ; but the national opinion was that some trick had been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. . . . The Jury, who, after remain- ing together all night (one being stubborn) pro- nounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of the 30th June, 1688."— W. H, Torriano, Wil- liam tlie Third, ch. 2. — "The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people fiUed the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining 933 ENGLAND, 1687-1688. William of Orange invited. ENGfLAND, 1688. streets. Sir Robert Langley , the foreman of the jury, being, according to established form, aslied whether the accused were guilty or not guilty, pronounced the verdict ' Not guilty. ' No sooner were these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and- massy roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with elec- trical rapidity from voice to voice along the in- finite multitude who waited in the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. . . . ' The acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow, and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers iu the hear- ing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'" — Sir J. Mack- intosh, Hist, of the Kemlution in Eng. in 1688, ch. 9. Also in : A. Strickland, Lives of the Seven Bish- ops. — R. Southey, Bk. of the Church, ch. 18. — G. G. Perry, Hist, of the Ch. of Eng., ch. 30 (b. 3). A. D. i"688 (July).— William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation. — "The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the im- portance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of Lewis XIV." — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of Eng., ch. 9, sect. 7.— "Wil- liam of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England [as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and, therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.] ; and his consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was, at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown." — Sir J. Mackintosh, Hist, of the Revolution in Eng., ch. 10. A. D. i688 (July — November).— Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it. — ' ' In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first demonstra- tion of the full force of that popular animosity which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however, Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with pro- posals to William [Prince of Orange] to make an armed descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and the Protestant religion. AVilliam had cautiously required a signed in- vitation from at least a few representative states- men before committing himself to such an enter- prise, and on the day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, andLumley, by Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by Henry Sidney, brother of Alger- non, was conveyed by Admiral Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the required security for English assistance in the projected undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme difficulty. ... On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his English advisers, put forth his famous declara- tion. Starting with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England had been set at naught. The most important of these were — (1) the exercise of the dispensing power; (3) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial bench; (3) the viola- tion of the test laws by the appointment of papists to offices (particularly judicial and military of- fices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally the arbitrary and illegal measures re- sorted to by James for the propagation of the Catholic religion ; (4) the establishment and action of the Court of High Commission; (5) the in- fringement of some municipal charters, and the procuring of the surrender of others ; (6) inter- ference with elections by turning out of all em- ployment such as refused to vote as they were required ; and (7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had been done to remove. Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords spiritual and tem- poral, and other English subjects of all ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant re- ligion, and the conclusion of an agreement be- tween the Church of England and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the ' pre- tended Prince of Wales ' ; and that this object being attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in readi- ness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States- General. . . . On the 19th William and his arma- ment set sail from Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of November the fleet jiiut to sea a second time. . . . By noon of the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into Torbay." — H. D. Traill, William the Third, ch. 3. Also in : G. Burnet, Hist, of My Own Time, 1688 (41. 3).— L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng., 17th Gent., bk. 18, ch. 1-i {v. 4). — Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Gliancellors, ch. 106-107." Somers (». 4). — T. P. Courtenay, Life of Danby (Lard- ner's Cab. Cyclop.), pp. 315-334. A. D. i688 (November— December). — The Revolution. — Ignominious flight of James. — "The declaration published by the prince [on landing] consisted of sixteen articles. It enu- merated those proceedings of the government since the accession of the king, which were 934 ENGLAND, 1688. The Revolution. Might of James. ENGLAKD, 1689. regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. ... To provide some ef- fectual remedy against these and similar evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the prince, in comijliance with earnest solicita- tions from many lords, both spiritual and tem- poral, from numbers among the gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. . . . Ad- dresses were also published to the army and navy. . . . The immediate effect of these apjieals did not correspond with the expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet submission. The memory of i\Ionmouth's expe- dition was still fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some ofHcers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince; and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St. Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however, quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to desert the service of the king. . . . Every day now brought with it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour ; while James was as constantly re- minded, by one desertion after another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at Sher- burne ; the princess made her escape from White- hall at night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and Plymouth, Hull, York, and New- castle, were among the places of strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince. His standard had also been unfurled with success in the counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. . . . Even in Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his person from a distance ; but from that course he was dissuaded by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an assembly of peers, James issued a procla- mation on the 13th of November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a parliament on the loth of January ; that a pardon of all offences should previously pass the great seal ; and that commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin ; but William evaded for some days the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting the destruction of life and property on the largest possible scale. . . . No one doubted the authenticity of this document, and the fer- ment and disorder which it spread through the city filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December, the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voy- age to Calais. James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their pro- ceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that a parliament should be assem- bled; that all persons holding public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish them ; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should be placed in the hands of Protestants ; that the expense of the Dutch arma- ment should be defrayed, in part, from the Eng- lish Treasury ; and that the king and the prince, and their respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from London during the sitting of parliament. James read these articles with some surprise, observing that they were much more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been given to the queen ; the city was still in great agitation ; and private letters. Intimating that his person was not beyond the reach of dan- ger, suggested that his interests might possibly be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption until it came near to Fevers- ham, where some fishermen, suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took them from the vessel. . . . The arrest of tht monarch at Feversham on Wednesday was fol lowed by an order of the privy council, command- ing that his carriage and the royal guards should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. . . . After some consultation the king was informed that the public interests required his Immediate withdrawment to some distance fi'om Westmin- ster, and Hampton Court was named. James ex- pressed a preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. . . . His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to his departure was likely to arise ; and on the last day of this memorable year — only a week after his removal from Whitehall, James em- barked secretly at Rochester, and with a favoura- ble breeze safely reached the French coast." — R. Vaughan, Hist, of England under the House of Stuart, V. 2, pp. 914-918. Aiso IN : Lord Macaulay, Bist. of Eng. , ch. 9- 10 (b. 2).— H. D. Traill, William tJie Third, ch. 4. — Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's Hist, oftlie Rev. in 1688, ch. 16-17.— Sir J. Dalrymple, Mem- oirs of Gt. Britain and Ireland, pt. 1, bk. 6-7 (o. 2). A. D. 1689 (January— February).— The set- tlement of the Crowrn on William and Mary.— The Declaration of Rights.— "The convention 935 ENGLAND, 1689. Willia7n and Mary, ENGLAND, 1689. met on the 22nd of January. Their first care was to address the prince to take the administration of affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he already exercised. On the 28tli of January tlie commons, after a debate in which the friends of tlie late king made but a faint opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II., having endeavoured to SHb- vert the constitution of this kingdom, by break- ing the original contract between king and peo- ple, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn liimself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously the next day. That it hath been found by experience inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a popisli prince. This vote was a remarkable triumph of the whig party, who had contended for the exclusion bill. . . . The lords agreed with equal unanimity to this vote ; which, thougli It was expressed only as an abstract proposition, led by a practical" inference to the whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former resolution several important divisions took place." The lords were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions, that James had "abdicated " the government by his desertion of it, and that the throne had there- by become "vacant." They yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the com- mons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution, that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king and queen of Eng- land, and all tlie dominions thereunto belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, de- layed to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they should have completed the declaration of those fundamental rights and lib- erties for the sake of which alone they had gone forward with this great revolution. That decla- ration, being at once an exposition of the mis- government which had compelled them to de- throne the late king, and of the conditions upon which they elected his successors, was incorpo- rated in the final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the state of affairs required : That William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them ; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after their decease the said crown and royal dig- nity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the lieirs of the body of the said princess ; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of her body ; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. . . . The Declaration of Rights pre- sented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a recital of the illegal and arbi- trary acts committed by the late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a declara- tion, nearly following the words of the former part, that such enumerated acts are illegal ; and a resolution, that the throne shall be tilled by the prince and princess of Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. . . . This declaration was, some months afterwards [in October], confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of rights [see below: 1689 (October)]." — H. Hal- lam, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 14-15 (o. 3). Also in: Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 10 (j). 2).— L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng., nth Cent., bk. 19, c7i. 2-3 (». 4).— R. Gneist, Hist, of Eng. Const. , ch. 42 (v. 2). A. D. 1689 (April— August).— The Church and the Revolution. — The Toleration Act.— The Non-Jurors. — "The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late changes were not all of the same way of thinking in re- ligion ; many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them in Charles II. 's reign. Protestant Dissent- ers, save those who denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however, very narrow ; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test Acts were left untouched. King "William, who was a Presbyterian in his own laud, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in Convocation — as the Parliament of the Church is called — William could get nothing done. At the same time a rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which every rnan who held a preferment in the Church, or either of the Universities, had to swear to be true to King Wil- liam and Queen JIary, or had to give up his pre- ferment. Most of the clergy were very unwill- ing to obey this law ; but only 400 were found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were called 'non- jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II. only a year before. The sect of non- jurors, who looked upon themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e., early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names High-Church and Low-Church first came into use." — J. Rowley, Tlie Settlement of the Constitution, ch. 1. Also in: J. Stoughton. Hist, of Reliyion in Eng., V. 5, ch. 4-11.— T. Lathbury, Hist, of the Non-jurors. 93a ENGLAND, 1689. Bill of Rights. ENGLAND, 1689. A. D. 1689 (May).— War declared against France. — The Grand Alliance. See Prance: A. D. 1689-1690. A. D. 1689 (October).— The Bill of Rights.— The following is tlie text of the Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689: Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [0. s.], present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain Declara- tion in writing, made by the said Lords and Com- mons, in the words following, viz. : " Whereas the late King James IL, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers em- ployed by him, did endeavour to subvert and ex- tirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom: i. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and sus- pending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament. 2. By commit- ting and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concur ring to the said assumed power. 3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes. 4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament. 5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament, and quar- tering soldiers contrary to law. 6. IBy causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law. 7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament. 8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal causes. 9. And where- as of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned, and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders. ID. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. II. And excessive fines have been im- posed ; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted. 12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied. All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said late King James IL having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glori- ous instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs, and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted ; upon which letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their re- spective letters and elections, being now assem- bled in a full and free representation of this na- tion, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, de- clare: I. That the pretended power of suspend- ing of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is ille- gal. 2. That the pretended power of dispens- ing with laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal. 3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ec- clesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious. 4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law. 7. Tliat the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their con- ditions, and as allowed by law. 8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free. 9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or pro- ceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlia- ment. 10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines Imposed ; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. 13. And that for redress of all grie- vances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws. Parliament ought to be lield frequently. And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties ; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any wise to be drawn here- after into consequence or example. To which demand of their rights they are particularly en- couraged by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and 937 ENGLAND, 1689. Bill of Rights. ENGLAND, 1689. liberties : II. The said Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them ; and that the sole and full ex- ercise of the regal power be only in, and exe- cuted by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body ; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com- mons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to ac- cept the same accordingly. III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law instead of them ; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear. That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear. That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damna- ble doctrine and position, that princes excom- municated or deprived by the Pope, or any au- thority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other what- soever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre- eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me God.'" IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of Eng- land, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons con- tained in the said declaration. V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in dan- ger again of being subverted ; to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to act accordingly. VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Par- liament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration, and the ar- ticles, clauses, matters, and things therein con- tained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, 'That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and in- dubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are ex- pressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majes- ties and their successors according to the same in all times to come. VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his marvellous providence, and merciful good- ness to this nation, to provide and preserve their said ^Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts, think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their Maj- esties having accepted the Crown and royal dig- nity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and Ire- land, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining, are most fully, right- fully, and entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed. VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm, by rea- son of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their Maj- esties that it may be enacted, established, and declared, that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire, perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body ; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of his said Majesty : And thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or queen marry- ing a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Tem- poral, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted. That all and every person and per- sons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of 938 ENGLAND, 1689. Battle of Beachy Head. ENGLAND, 1693. Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever Incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exer- cise, any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same ; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have in- herited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding com- munion, or professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead. X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any time here- after shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, sub- scribe, and audibly repeat the declaration men- tioned in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Charles II., Intituled " An Act for the more efEectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. " But if it shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such King or Queen shall have at- tained the said age of twelve years. XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and established by au- thority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Par- liament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established accord- ingly. XII. And be it further declared and en- acted by the authority aforesaid. That from and after this present session of Parliament, no dispen- sation by "non obstante" of or to any statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, ex- cept a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament. XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or par- don granted before the thi-ee-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty -nine, shall be any ways im- peached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other, than as if this Act had never been made. A. D. 1689-1696. — The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. (called in American history " King William's War "). See France: A. D. 1689- 1690; 1689-1691; 1693; 1693 (July) ; 1694 ; 1695- 1696.— Also, Canada: A. D. 1689-1690; 1693- 1697; and Newfoundland: A. D. 1691^1697. A. D. 1690 (June).— The Battle of Beachy Head. — The great peril of the kingdom. — "In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of Tor- rington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs, and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch fleet under Evertsen. On the 36th of June the English and French fleets were close to each other, and an important engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington abandoned the Isle of Wight and re- treated towards the Straits of Dover. . . . The Queen and her Council, receiving this intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight. Torrington received these orders on the 39th June. Next day he bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most splendid courage, but at length, being unsup- ported, his second in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen, and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington destroyed some of these in- jured ships, took the remainder in tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When in that river he pulled up all the buoys to pre- vent pursuit. . . . Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the third day was acquitted ; but William refused to see him, and ordered him to be dismissed from the navy." — W. H. Torriano, William tlie Third, ch. 34. — "There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The shame was insupportable ; the peril was imminent. ... At any moment London might be appalled by news that 30,000 French veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months, making preparations for a rising. All the regu- lar troops who could be assembled for the defence of the island did not amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than that of the first week of July 1690." — Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng., ch. 15 (». 3). Also rpf : J. Campbell, Naval Hist, of Gt. Brit. , cfi. 18 (1). 2). A. D. 1690-1691. — Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland. See Ireland: A. D. 1689-1691. A. D. 1692. — The new charter to Massachu- setts as a royal province. See Massachxisetts : A. D. 1689-1693. A. D. 1692. — Attempted invasion from France. — Battle of La Hogue. — " The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more powerful 939 ENGLAND, 1692. Battle of La Hogue. ENGLAND. 1701. assistance, and obtained what bad been refused him after the days of tlie Boyne and Beachy- Head, — an army to invade England. News re- ceived from that country explained this change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at Versailles was no better than in the past ; but England was believed to be on the eve of counter- revolution, which it would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow. . . . Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among the Tories, among others the Duke of SLirlborough (Churchill), had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet whieli he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval operations accordingly. Aii army of 30, 000 men, with 500 transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre : this was com- posed of all the Irisli troops, a number of Anglo- Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marslial de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set out from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy ' whatever might be his numbers. ' It was believed that half of the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned with- out the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of France, this time turned against her. " The French fleets were detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations. Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible to sail from Brest, tlie Jacobite plot had been discovered in England, the govern- ment was on its guard, and the Dutch and Eng- lish fleets had made their junction. Still, the French admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99, 78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63 ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men ; the French fleet less than 20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack, bear- ing down under full sail ' ' on the immense mass of the enemy. " The attempt was almost hopeless ; and yet, when night fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet lost a ship ; but his line of battle had been broken, and no chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day, Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had desired, the French fleet would have pre- served its laurels! There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency, Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet through the dangerous chan- nel called the Race of Aldernej', which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast. Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of La Hogue, — in the presence and under the guns of King James' army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his unlucky star ' everywhere shed a malign influence around him; but this influence was only that of his blindness and incapacity. Such was that dis- aster of La Hogue, which has left among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the French navy. ... La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head. The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies had lost two years before, and the 15 ves- sels destro3'ed were soon replaced." — H. Martin, Hist, of France : Age of Louis XIV. (tr. by M. L. Booth), V. 2, ck. 2. Also in : Lord Macaulay, Hist, of Eng. , ch. 18 (i\ 4). — L. vou Ranke, Hist, of Eng. , llth Century, hk. 20, ch. 4 (i). 5). — Sir J. Dairy mple. Memoirs of Gt. Britain and Ireland, pt. 2, hk. 7 (b. 3). A. D. 1695. — Expiration of censorship la^w. — Appearance of first newspapers. See Print- ing AND THE Press: A. D. 1695. A. D. 1696-1749. — Measures of commercial and industrial restriction in the American col- onies. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1696- 1749 ; and Trade, Modern. A. D. 1697. — The Peace of Ryswick. — Rec- ognition of William III. by France. See France : A. D. 1697. A. D. 1698. — The founding of Calcutta. See India : A. D. 1600-1702. A. D. 1698-1700. — The question of the Span- ish Succession. See Spain : A. I). 1698-170(1, 17th Century.— Commercial Progress. See Trade, Modern. A. D. 1701.— The Act of Settlement.— The source of the sovereignty of the House of Han- over or Brunswick. — 'William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the J'oung Duke of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond infancy, died. There was now no hope of "there being anyone to inherit the crown bj^ the Bill of Rights after the death of William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore. Parliament settled the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs. Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law tliat did this is called the Act of Settlement ; it gives Queen Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it tried 940 ENGLAND, 1701. Act of Settlement. ENGLAND, 1702-1714. to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or to hold an office under the Crown ; (3) for the king to go to war in defence of countries that did not belong to England, un- less Parliament gave him leave ; or (3) to pardon anyone so that the Commons might not be able to impeach him." — .1. Rowley, 2'he Settlement of the Coiutitiitioii, bk. 1, ch. 5. — "Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament, and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the fittest object of the na- tion's preference. She was indeed very far re- moved from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy, daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of which their ancestors had been the strenu- ous assertors ; but it seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. . . . According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement, all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of king William and the princess Anne, be- ing set aside and annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors. But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of the house of Brunswic. But they have trans- mitted no more right to the allegiance of Eng- land than Boniface of Este or Henry the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legis- lature." — H. Hallam, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 15 {0. 3). Also m : Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, bk. 10 (». 2). — See, also, England: A. D. 1714. A. D. 1701-1702. — The rousing of the nation to war with France. — When Louis XIV. pro- cured and accepted for his grandson the bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Parti- tion Treaty, " William had the intolerable cha- grin of discovering not only that he had been befooled, but that his English subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the royal swindler who had tricked him. ' The blindness of the people here,' he writes sadly to the Pen- sionary Heinsius, ' is incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was better for England that France should accept the will than fulfil the Treaty of Parti- tion.'. . . William dreaded the idea of a Bour- bon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assign- ment of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the Dauphin ; but they were undis- turbed by the sight of the Duke of Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. . . . But just as, under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were instantaneously imited by the shock of a gross affront. The hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II. breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of those impulses, half -chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often determined hi.-i policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely and effective assistance to the [lolicy of its de facto king could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned from Holland on the 4tli of November, he found the country in the temper in which he could most have wished it to be. " Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament — in the country it was already inaudible — ^was completely silenced. The two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm resolve to defend the suc- cession against the pretended Prince of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. . . . Nor did the goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons accepted without a word of protest the four treaties constituting the new Grand Alliance. . . . The votes of supply were passed unanimously. " But scarcely had the nation and the King arrived at this agreement with one another than the latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February, 1703, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his horse, which liis frail and diseased body could not bear. His death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of March fol- lowing. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed Stuart king, James II. — H. D. Traill, William the Third, ch. 14-15. Also in : L. von Ranke, Hist, of Eng. , Vlth Century, bk. 31, ch. 7-10 {v. 5). — See, also, Spain: A. D. 1701-1703. A. D. 1702. — Accession of Queen Anne. A. D. 1702. — Union of rival East India Companies. See India: A. D, 1600-1703. A. D. 1702.— The War of the Spanish Suc- cession. See Spain : A. D. 1703 ; and Nether- lands : A. D. 1703-1704. A. D. 1702. — First daily newspaper. See PniNTiNG AND PiiESS : A. I). 1623-17U3. A. D. 1702-1711. — The War of the Spanish Succession in America (called " Queen Anne's War"). See New Engl.s.nd: A. D. 1703-1710; Canada: A. D. 1711-1713. A. D. 1702-1714. — The Age of Anne in lit- erature. — "That which was once called the Augustan age of English literature was specially marked by the growing development of a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from the early system of the patronage of authors to the later system of their professional indepen- dence. Patronage was being changed into influ- ence. The system of subscription, by which Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage. The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to subscribe. The noble 941 ENGLAND, 1702-1714. Age of Anne in Literature. ENGLAND, 1703. moreover, made another discovery. He found that he could dispense a cheaper and more effect- ive patronage than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place. The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation took place. The minister found it better to have a regular corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than occa- sionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees, struggled into a more indepen- dent position as their public increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently nu- merous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous as to split into entirely distinct frac- tions. The old religious and political warfare has softened ; the statesman loses his place, but not his head ; and though there is plenty of bit- terness, there is little violence. "We have thus a brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergy- men, and lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses, talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays ; more excit- able, perhaps, than their fathers, but less des- perately in earnest, and waging a constant pam- phleteering warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly gaining some authority as the wielder of a polit- ical force. The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is moulded by the social con- ditions of the class for which and by which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas current in contemporary speculation. . . . Pope is the typical representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or Addison ; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however, that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the century proved that, in some sense, he is a most characteristic prod- uct. Nor is it hard to see the main sources of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities. He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to coin more proverbs than any writer since Shake- speare. Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than poetry. The con- troversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day with a curious complete- ness. . . . There is, however, another wide prov- ince of literature in which writers of the eigh- teenth century did work original in character and of permanent value. If the seventeenth cen- tury is the great age of di-amatists and theolo- gians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the critic, the essayist, the satirist, the nov- elist, and the moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark. Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an independent art with Addison. Addison and his various colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the preceding centur}', and in the hands of Dryden had become a formidable political weapon ; but the social satire of which Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett de- veloped the modern novel out of very crude rudi- ments ; and two of the greatest men of the cen- tury. Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. . . . The English novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe. Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was developed out of previously existing material, and is related to the great family of stories with which men have amused themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery that a history might be equally interest- ing if the recorded events had never happened." — L. Stephen, Hist, of Eng. Tlwiiglit in the Eigh- teenth Century, ch. 12, sect. 23-56 (». 2).— "This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing part of it to adopt the epithet ' Augustan. ' It will scarcely be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest critical enthusiasm, the eigh- teenth century will be enjoyed more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has, although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a remarkable fulness and sus- tained richness which endear it to specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real Augus- tan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit, and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more points than either of these schools. This sus- tained and variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort, strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The Eliza- bethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the distinguish- ing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be indicated as its masterj' of prose as a vehicle for general thought." — E. Gosse, The Study of Eigh- teenth-Century Literature {New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, p. 21). A. D. 1703. — The Methuen Treaty with Portugal. See Portugal: A. D. 1703; and Spain: A. D. 1703-1704. 942 ENGLAND, 1703. Fall of the Whigs. ENGLAND, 1710-1713. A. D. 1703. — The Aylesbury election case. — "Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower House maintained that ' the qualification of an elector is not cognizable else- where than before the Commons of England ' ; that Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege ; and that all persons who should in future com- mence such an action, and all attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Soniers, then came to counter-resolutions. . . . The prorogation of Parliament put an end to the quarrel in that Session ; but in the next it was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his damages. Other Ayles- bury men brought new actions. The Commons imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a proroga- tion ; and the quarrel expired when the Parlia- ment expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers ' established the doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the vote of an elector. '" — C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Emj., ■!). 5, ch. 17. Also in: Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Cluinccllors : Somer.i. ch. 110 (p. 4). A. D. 1704-1707. — Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession. — Cam- paigns in Spain. See Germany: A. D. 1704; Spain: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707; Netherlands: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707. A. D. 1707. — The Union with Scotland. See Scotland : A. D. 1707. A. D. 1707-1708. — Hostility to the Union in Scotland. — Spread of Jacobitism. See Scot- land: A. D. 1707-1708. A. D. 1708-1709.— The War of the Spanish Succession : Oudenarde and Malplaquet. See Netherlands: A. D. 1708-1709; and Spain: A. D. 1707-1710. A. D. 1709. — The Barrier Treaty with Hol- land. — " The influence of the Whig party in the alfairs of government in England, always irk- some to the Queen, had now began visibly to decline ; and the partiality she was suspected of entertaining for her brother, with her known dis- like of the house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories might seek still fur- ther to propitiate her favour, by altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present es- tablished. They had, accordingly, made it one of the preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the Protestant succession, in Eng- land, should be secured by a general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that efEect with the States. The Marquis Towns- hend, accordingly, repaired for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to enter into an engagement to maintain the present suc- cession to the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that kingdom. In return for this important guar- antee, England was to secure to the States a bar- rier, formed of the towns of Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel, Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur, Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and Dendermonde. ]t was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the dereliction from that treaty on the part of Eng- land, that Townshend had gone beyond his in- structions; but it is quite certain that it was I'atifled without hesitation by the queen, what- ever may have been her secret feelings regarding it." — C. M. Da vies. Hist, of Holland, pt. 3, ch. 11 (». 8 ). A. D. 1710-1712. — Opposition to the war. — Trial of Sacheverell. — Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough. — "A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the growing weari- ness of the war, and the rejection of the French offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of Marlborough of lengthening out a con- test which brought him profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John [Bolingbroke] from the JNIinistry had given the Tories leaders of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves felt. In the Ex- aminer, and in a crowd of pamphlets and period- icals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior, the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its general. ... A sud- den storm of popular passion showed the way in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A High-Church divine. Dr. Sacheverell, main- tained the doctrine of non-resistance [the doc- trine, that is, of passive obedience and non-resis- tance to government, implying a condemnation of the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his im- peachment. His trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. . . . A small majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Mashara, had succeeded fhe Duchess of Marlbor- ough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. . . . The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his [Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A masterly plan for a march .into the heart of France in the opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his forces, and the nego- tiations which had for some time been conducted between the French and English Ministers with- out his knowledge marched rapidly to a close. ... At the opening of 1713 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by the 943 ENGLAND, 1710-1712. Queen Anne^s later Ministers. ENGLAND, 1711-1714. creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborougli was dismissed from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once with- drew from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the peace was at an end." — J. R. Green, Short Hist, of the Eng. People, sett. 9, ch. 9. — Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of the Emperor Joseph I. , which occurred In April, 1711, had entirely reversed the situation iu Europe out of which the war proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in De- cember, 1711. By this change of fortune, there- fore, he became a more objectionable claimant (if the Spanish crown than Louis XIV. 's grand- son had been. See Austria: A. D. 1711. — Earl Stanhope, Hist, of Eng., Reir/n of Anne, ch. IS- IS. — "Round the fall of Marlborough has gath- ered the interest attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party Govern- ment in the modern sense actually commenced. William the Third -nath military instinct had always been reluctant to govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. . . . The new idea of a homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present time, was as yet some way off. Marl- borough's notions were those of tlie late King. Both abroad and at home lie carried out the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The Ministry of Godol- phin was a composite administration, containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St. John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. . . . Lord Somers was a type of states- man of a novel order at that time. ... In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to find a man attaining the highest political rank who was unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the great ' governing fami- lies,' as they have been called. Lord Somers ■was the son of a Worcester attorney. ... It was fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional govern- ment, as we now call it, was in course of con- struction. By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign ; and from the ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed, as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the Tory party was Bolingbroke's ; and that the Tories suffered from the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood Go- dolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and careful attention to the details of administration Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns remained un- fought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one man, is due the preponderance of the Treas- ury control in public affairs. It was his admin- istration, during the absence of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the oflice of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way for Sir Robert Walpole's govern- ment of England under the title of First Lord of the Treasury. . . . Marlborough saw and always admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting credit it must be remem- bered that iu a venal age, when the standards of public honesty were so different from those which now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. . . . Bolingbroke is interesting to us as the most strik- ing figure among the originators of the new par- liamentary system. With Marlborough disap- peared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors. Bolingbroke and his suc- cessor Walpole were the earlier types of consti- tutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later, Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. ... He and his friends, opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are Interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of ' Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government and the prototypes of cabinet minis- ters of to-day. Their ways of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or Mr. Chamberlain." — R. B. Brett, Footprints of Statesmen, ch. 3. Also in: W. Coxe, Memoirs of 3Iarlbnrough, ch. 89-107. — The same. Memoirs of Walpole, v. 1. ch. 5-6. — G. Saintsbury, Marlborough. — G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke, v. 1, ch. 6-13. — J. C. Collins, Bolingbroke. — A. Hassall, Life of Bolingbroke, ch. 3. A. D. 1711-1714. — The Occasional Confor- mity Bill and the Schism Act.— "The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament a necessary qualification for becoming a member of corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was very eflicacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether insufficient to ex- clude moderate Dissenters. . . . Such men, while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no scruple about occasionally enter- ing an Anglican church, or receiving the sacra- ment from an Anglican clergyman. The Inde- pendents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured this practice, and Defoe wrote vehe- mently against it, but it was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing authorities. ... In 1703, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht ; but the Tories "made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional Conformity Bill should be ac- cepted by the Whigs. The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common council men in corpora- 944 ENGLAND, 1711-1714. Coining of the Hanoverians, ENGLAND, 1714. tions, who, while holding office, were proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of wor- ship, should forfeit the place, and should con- tinue incapable of public employment till they should depose that for a whole year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Com- mons added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable, for the gi'eat majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in office, abstaining from public wor- ship in conventicles, but having Dissenting min- isters as private chaplains in their houses. . . . The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was to exclude the Dissenters from all Govern- ment positions of power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and de- prive them of the means of educating their children in their faith. ... As carried through the House of Commons, it provided that no one, under pain of three months' imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school, or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the Anglican liturgy, and had re- ceived the sacrament in some Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent occasional conformity it was further provided that if a teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment, and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from acting as schoolmaster or tutor. . . . Some important clauses, however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its severity. They provided that Dissenters might have school-mistresses to teach their children to read ; that the Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. . . . The facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the latter years of the reign of Queen Anne. " — W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of Eng., 18th Centunj, ch. 1. — The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration of Lord Stanhope. — Cobbett's Parliamentary History, v. 7, pp. 567-587. Axso IN: J. Stoughton, Hist, of ReUyion in Eng., V. 5, ch. 14-16. A. D. 1713.— Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession. — The Peace of Utrecht. — Acquisitions from Spain and France. See Utrecht: A. D. 1712-1714; C.^ada: A. D. 1711-1713; also, Newfoundland: A. D. 1713; and Slavery, Negro: A. D. 1698-1776. A. D. 1713.— Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch. See Netherlands (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715. A. D. 1713-1714. — The desertion of the Catalans. See Spain: A. D. 1713-1714. A. D. 1714. — The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the Hanoverians. — Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the ministry, were wholly un- prepared for this emergency. They assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent, and ' ' a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and Somerset, though they 945 had contributed largely by their defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin, wei'c now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their rank of Privy Coun- cillors, they appeared uusummoned in the coun- cil room, pleading the greatness of the emergency. Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance ; and these three men appear to have guided the course of events. . . . Shrews- bury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy Coun- cillors, irrespective of party, to attend ; and Somers and several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post. They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy they should pursue, and their measures were taken with admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels. An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped, and speedy measures were taken to jjrotect the seaports and to secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time des- patches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the ten British battalions to embark without delay ; to Lord Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the States-General to ful- fil their guarantee of the Protestant succession in England ; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom. " When the Queen's death occurred, " the new King was at once proclaimed, and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing Cross, and to have offered to head the processinn in his lawn sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement would be now worse than useless. . . . The more violent spirits among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion, but the calmer mem- bers of the party perceived that such an invasion was impossible. . . . The Regency Act of 1705 came at once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector entrusted the govern- ment before his arrival, and it was found to con- sist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the Whig party. . . . Parliament, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, was at once sum- moned, and it was soon evident that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration was passed." — W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of Eng., 18th Cent., ch. 1 (». 1). — "George I., whom cir- cumstances and the Act of Settlement had thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had been Elector of Bruns- wick-Lilneburg. He was the second who ever bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector ; it was by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of Osna- burg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had ENGLAND, 1714. XValpole and Parlia- mentary Government. ENGLAND, 1714-1721. become Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg. In 1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector. . . .The niother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only meant wife of an Elector. . . . The Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne of Bohemia and subsequent expul- sion from that kingdom and from his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty Years' "War]. . . . The new royal house in England is sometimes called the House of Hanover, some- times the House of Brunswick. It will be found that the latter name is more generally used in histories written during the last centurj', the for- mer in books written in the present day. If the names were equallj' applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of the House of Brunswick ; but no other has a right to the name of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the English use may be, Hanover Is properly the name of a town and of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Liineburg. . . . The House of Brunswick was of noble ori- gin, tracing itself back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed ' the Robust,' son of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King, Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. . . . One of Guelph's descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at whose persuasion the Emperor con- ferred on the Guelphs the duchy of Brunswick." — E. E. Morris, The Early HaTwverians, bk. 1, ch. 2. Also in : P. M. Thornton, T?ie Brunswick Ac- cession, ch. 1-10. — Sir A. HaUiday, Annals of the Houseof Hanover, bk. 10(». 2). — J. McCarthy, Hist, of the Four Oeorges, ch. 1-4. — W. M. Thackeray, The Four Georges, lect. 1.— A. W. Ward, The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (Eng. Hist. Rev., v. 1). — See, also, England: A. D. 1701, The Act of Settlement. A. D. 1714-1721. — First years of George I. — The rise of Walpole to power and the found- ing of Parliamentary Government. — "The ac- cession of the house of Hanover in the person of the great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place without domestic or foreign disturbance. . . . Within our own borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and the title disappears from political history. Lord Towns- hend was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the paymaster- ship of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year (October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable in the House of Com- mons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. . . . Besides excluding their opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret committee was at once appointed to inquire into the negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the lead in its pro- ceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of Utrecht. . . . The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke are the last instance in our history of a political impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has ceased to be a crime. . . . The affair came to an abortive end. . . . The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least attractive periods in political history. George I. . . . cared very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about its people or its institutions. . . . His expeditions to Hanover threw the management of all domes- tic affairs almost without control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two first Hano- verian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans, if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of strong and command- ing will without much talent, Walpole would never have been able to lay the foundations of government by the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it [see Cabinet, The English]. Happily for the sys- tem now established, circumstances compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to manage the af- fairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern England. It was an excellent bargain for Eng- land. Smooth as this operation may seem in his- toric description, Walpole found its early stages rough and thorny. " The king was not easily brought to understand that England would not make war for Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party. Walpole retired from the govern- ment with Townshend, and was in opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came to an end in 1720, and Towns- hend and Walpole rejoined the administratnon, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without a seat in the Cabinet. " His opposition was at an end, but he took no part in the active work of government. . . . Before many months had passed the country was overtaken by the memora- ble disasters of the South Sea Bubble [see South Sea Bubble]. . . . All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public predictions came back to men's minds ; they re- membered that he had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the disgrace of his most important colleagues only made his sagacity the more prominent. ... He returned to his old posts, and once more became First Lord of the 946 ENGLAND. 1714-1721. Walpole and George II. ENGLAND, 1727-1741. Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again Secretary of State. "Walpole held his offices practically with- out a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an almost equal span of unbroken su- premacy, but with that exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this ex- traordinary stability, we must remember that the country had just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in 1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restora- tion of Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order of succession to "William of Orange, the reactionary ministry of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of Hano- ver. The interposition, after so long a series of violent perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of capital and decisive importance in our history, and con- stitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a king, but a true and definite period, with a be- ginning, an end, a significance, and a unity of its own." — J. Morley, Walpole, ch. 3—4. Also in : W. Coxe, Memoirs of Sir Robert Wal- pole, ch. 9-31 {V. 1). A. D. 1715. — The Jacobite rising. See Scot- land: A. D. 1715. A. D. 1716. — The Septennial Act. — The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing statute of 6 "William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694], Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very seri- ous riots during the election time. "With this in view, the ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This, which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been repealed, and is still the law under which Par- liaments are held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament, that it was acting arbi- trarily in thus increasing its own duration. ' It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long Parliament in declaring itself inde- structible.' It has been regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the peculiar conditions of the time. It was use- less to look to the constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of cor- rupt or corruptible freemen ; in the counties, of great landowners ; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of the House of Lords — freedom and independence in the presence of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature, the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received, upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation of the best statesmen of the time. " —J. F. Bright, mst. ofEng., period 3, p. 938. Also in: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist. of Eng., 1713-1783, v. 1, ch. 6. A. D. 1717-1719. — The Triple Alliance. — The Quadruple Alliance. — War with Spain. See Spain: A. D. 1713-1725; also, Italy: A. D. 1715-1735. A. D. 1720.— The South Sea Bubble. See South Sea Bubble. A. D. 1721-1742. — Development of the Cabi- net System of ministerial government. See Cabinet, The English. A. D. 1725. — The Alliance of Hanover. See Spain: A. D. 1713-1735. A. D. 1726-1731. — Fresh differences vyith Spain. — Gibraltar besieged. — The Treaty of Seville. — The Second Treaty of Vienna. See Spain: A. D. 1736-1731. A. D. 1727. — Accession of King George II. A. D. 1727-1741. — Walpole's administra- tion under George II. — "The management of public affairs during the six j'ears of George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Min- ister, was easy. . . . His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by George the First's death [1737]. That King's successor had ransacked a very co- pious vocabulary of abuse, in order to stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal, scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert Walpole's name was mentioned. . . . Walpole bowed meekly to the coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed, and the rupture was total after the death of "Walpole's sister. Towns- end's wife. . . . After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was betraj'ed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his market. AValpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the people. I have already said, that before his accession George hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then came before the man in pos- session the clear vision of Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil list. . . . Besides, Walpole was sin- cerely determined to support the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be fought out in England. . . . Hence he was able to check one of the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. . . . It is generally understood that Walpole managed 947 ENGLAND, 1727-1741. Walpole'^s sta fesmansh ip. ENGLAND, 1727-1741. the House of Commons by bribery ; that the se- cret service money was thus employed : and that this minister was the father of that corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House during the first half of the last century. I sus- pect that these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is, in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about cer- tain members of the opposition. . . . Walpole has been designated, and with justice, as em- phatically a peace minister. He held ' that the most pernicious circumstances in which this coun- try can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoid- ing foreign embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke out in 1739. ... I do not intend to disparage Walpole's administra- tive ability when I say that the country pros- pered independently of any financial policy which he adopted or carried out. . . . Walpole let matters take their course, for he understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact, that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved, as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe ; and he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He contrived to smooth away the diffi- culties which arose in 1727 ; and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see Spain: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to 5,000 men." But the oppo- sition to Walpole's peace policy became a grow- ing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated, though with great difli- culty, the determination of his enemies to im- peach him. — J. E. T. Rogers, Historical Glean- ings, V. 1, ch. 3. — "It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career with adequate attention without recognising in him a great minister, although the merits of his administra- tion were often rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of statesmen largely depends. ... He was emi- nently true to the character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained, though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sym- pathies, its tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sove- reign with fidelity ; but he was intensely wedded to power, exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of honour which marks a high-minded man. . . . His estimate of political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. . . . It is necessary to speak with much caution on this matter, re- membering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the conditions of his time. . . . The systematic corruption of Members of Par- liament is said to have begun under Charles II., in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was continued under his successor, and the number of scandals rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. . . . And if cor- ruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally certain that it did not end with him. His ex- penditure of secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. . . . The real charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when he exercised an almost unexampled ascen- dancy in politics, and when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and success- fully resisted every attempt at reform. ... It was his settled policy to maintain his Parlia- mentary majority, not by attracting to his min- istry great orators, great writers, great financiers, or great statesmen, . . . but simply by engross- ing borough influence and extending tlae patron- age of the Crown."— W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of Eng. in the 18th Century, ch. 3 (». 1). — "But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pre- tender back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots attempting a Hanoverian regi- men over us : we should have had revolt, com- motion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen, patriot and statesman governed it. . . . In private life the old pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared for letters no more than his master did : he judged luunan nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base. But, with his hireling House of Commons, he de- fended liberty for us ; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. ... He gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and ease, and freedom ; the Three per Cents, nearly at par; and wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a 948 ENGLAND. 1727-1741. War of Jenkins'' Ear. ENGLAND, 1739-1741. quarter."— W. M. Thackeray, The Four Georges, eh. 2. Also m ; W. Coxe, Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole, eh. 31-59 (v. 1).— Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist, of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 15-23 (s. 2-3).— Lord Hervey, Memoirs of the Reign of Oeorge II. A. D. 1731-1740. — The question of the Aus- trian Succession. — Guarantee of the Prag- matic Sanction. See Austria: A. D. 1718- 1738, and 1740. A. D. 1732. — The grant of Georgia to Gen- eral Oglethorpe. See Georgia; A. D. 1783- 1739. A. D. 1733.— The first Bourbon Family Com- pact. — Its hostility to Great Britain. See France, A. D. 1733. A. D. 1733-1787. — The great inventions which built up the Cotton Manufacture. See Cotton JIanupacture. A. D. 1739-1741. — The War of Jenkins' Ear. — "In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and de- termined efforts to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain, which is an illu-st ra- tion of the saying that the occasion of a war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious. The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins, skipper of the ship ' Rebecca, ' of London, had been maltreated by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was boarded by the Spanish coastguard. The Spaniards could find no proof that .Jenkins was smuggling, though they search- ed narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his king. . . . Seven 3'ear8 later Captain Jenkins was examined by the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins an- swered, ' I recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was circulated through the country. ' No need of allies now,' said one politician ; ' the story of Jenkins will raise us volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from its some- what ridiculous aspect has remained in tlie minds of men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to Eng- lishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government ; and traders and sailors were break- ing the international laws which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in so many other cases the Eng- lish being prepared to fight in order to force an entrance for their trade, which the Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as their sole return for their victories what was known as the Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use had been for some time confined to the dis- graceful privilege of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portu- guese, and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on the business. The English Government committed the contract to the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy, merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or over forty years old. ' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a provision for the trading of one Eng- lish ship each year with Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a ship of the required num- ber of tons, but with it numerous tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very profitable, became common ; it was of this smug- gling that Captain Jenkins was accused. . . . Walpole, always anxious for peace, by argu- ment, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the growing desire for war ; at length he could resist no longer. For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office, but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. ... A year and a day after this declaration of war an event occurred — the death of the Emperor — which helped to swell the volume of this war until it was merged into the European war, called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war went on until the general pacification in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title ' Seven Years' War. ' The events of this- year, whilst the war was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on Spanish settle- ments in America, the capture of Porto Bello, and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous voyage." — E. E. Morris, The Early Hanoverians, bk. 2, cli. 3. — "Admiral Ver- non, setting sail with the English fleet from Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien, Dec. 1st — an exploit for which he received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian town of Paita, and made several prizes ; the most important of which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was on this occasion that Anson circumnavi- gated the globe, having sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744." — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern Europe, bk. 6, eh. 3. 949 ENGLAND, 1739-1741. Rise of Chatham. ENGLAND, 1744-1745. Also in : R. Walter, Voyage around the World of George Anson. — Sir J. Barrow, Life of Lord Oeorge Anson, ch. 1-2. — W. Coxe, Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain, ch. 43 (v. 3). — See, also, France, A. D. 1733, and Georgia: A. D. 1738- 1743. A. D. 1740-1741. — Beginning of the 'War of the Austrian Succession. See Austria; A. D. 1740-1741. A. D. 1742. — Naval operations in the Medi- terranean. See Italy: A. D. 1741-1743. A. D. 1742-1745. — Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams. — Pitt's admission to the Cabinet. — " Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1743; but his retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on ac- count of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the general assault upon the late admin- istration, but more especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had expressed on the sub- ject of Hanover, and respecting the public mis- chiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilming- ton was the nominal head of the new administra- tion, which was looked on as little more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same char- acter was generally given to PeUiam's ministry, (Pelham succeeded Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,) and Pitt soon ap- peared in renewed opposition to the Court. It was about this time that he received a creditable and convenient addition to his private fortune, which also attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy ' of 10,000 1. on account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was now at the head of a small but deter- mined band of Opposition statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages between members of their respective families and his own. These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of this party so em- barrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham, the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret, who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's Hano- verian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and GrenviUe, were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed Administration], and the un- doubted wish of the Pelhams was to enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But ' The great Mr. Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole — using in derision an epithet soon confirmed by the serious voice of 'the country — ' the great Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War ' ; — but it was found that the King's aversion to him was insurmount- able; and after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were persuaded to accept office with- out him, under an assurance from the Duke of Newcastle that ' he should at no distant day be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.' Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give his support to the remodelled administration. . . . On the breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically supported the ministry in their measures to protect the estab- lished government. George the Second's preju- dices against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of Februarj', 1746, he was appointed one of the joint Vice- treasurers for Ireland ; and on the 6th of May fol- lowing he was promoted to the more lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. . . . In his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then rare among statesmen, of per- sonal disinterestedness. He held what had hith- erto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 1. in his hands, and was allowed to appropriate the in- terest of what funds he held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the Pay- master of the Forces a per-centage on their sub- sidies. Pitt nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would accept of nothing be- yond his legal salary. " — Sir E. Creasy, Memoirs of Eminent Etonians, ch. 4. — " From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry Pelham followed his old chief, pub- lic life in England was singular])' calm and lan- guid. The temperate and peaceful disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At his death the King exclaimed : ' Now I shall have no more peace ' ; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in Parliament and in the coun- try, as well as beyond its shores, the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new statesman a new force, of which he was in part the representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into political life. This new force was the unrepre- sented voice of the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse, William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a strong-willed pur- pose ; but the flesh was in his case painfully weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged with- drawal at intervals from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow. Wal- pole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this 'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him." — R. B. Brett, Footprints of Statesmen, ch. 7. Also en: Lord !Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist, of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 24-28 (». 3). A. D. 1743. — The British Pragmatic Army. — Battle of Dettingen. See Austria: A. D. 1743. A. D. 1743 (October). — The second Bourbon Family Compact. See France: A. D. 1743 (October). A. D. 1743-1752. — Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India. — The founding of British empire by Clive. See India : A. D. 1743-1752. A. D. 1744-1745. — War of the Austrian Suc- cession: Hostilities in America. See New England: A. D. 1744; and 1745. 950 ENGLAND, 1745. TJie Seven Years War. ENGLAND, 1754-1755. A. D. 174s (May). — War of the Austrian Suc- cession in the Netherlands. — Fontenoy. See Netherlands (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745. A. D. 1745-1746. — The Young Pretender's invasion. — Last rising of the Jacobites. See 8coTL;iND: A. D. 1745-1746. A. D. 1745-1747. — War of the Austrian Suc- cession. — British incapacity. — Final successes at Sea. — "The extraordinary incapacity of Eng- lish commanders, both by land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war Tve are consid- ering. . . . Mismanagement and languor were general. The battle of Dettingen was truly de- scribed as a happy escape rather than a great vic- tory ; the army in Flanders can hardly be said to have exhibited any military quality except cour- age, and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of plundering the Spanish mereliandise and settlements in the Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. . . . The overwhelming superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which com- manded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the Newfoundland fisheries, was cap- tured in the June of 1745. In 1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior Eng- lish fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was de- feated near Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were enormously multiplied." — W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of En;/., ISth Century, ch. 3 (». 1), A. D. 1746-1747. — War of the Austrian Suc- cession in Italy. — Siege of Genoa. See Italy: A. D. 1T46-1T47. A. D. 1748 (October).— End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession. See Aix- LA-CiiAPELLE : A. D. 1748; and New England: A. D. 1745-1748. A. D. 1748-1754. — First movements to dis- pute possession of the Ohio Valley with the French. See Ohio (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754. A. D. 1749-1755. — Unsettled boundary dis- putes vyith France in America. — Preludes of the final contest. See Nova Scotia: A. D. 1749-1755; Canada: A. D. 1750-1753; and Ohio (Valley): A. D. 1754. A. D. 1751. — Reformation of the Calendar. See Calendar, Gregorian. A. D. 1753. — The Jewish Naturalization Bill. See Jews: A. D. 1663-1753. A. D. 1754. — Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley. See Ohio (Valley): A. D. 1754. A. D. 1754-1755.— The Seven Years War. — Its causes and provocations. — " The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortu- nately, however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient rivalry between France and Eng- land, which had formerly vented itself in conti- nental struggles, had, by the progress of mari- time discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Cha- pelle, France and England were mutually to re- store their conquests in such state as they were before the war. This clause became a copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute re- garded the limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the 12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England ' con- formably to its ancient boundaries ' ; but what these were had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed thon according to its con- venience. Thus, while the French pretended that Nova Scotia embraced on\j the peninsula extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English further included in it that part of the American continent which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St. Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New Bruns- wick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the British North American settlements. The English claimed the banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as forming part of Louisiana ; and they attempted to confine the British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana to Canada. Commissaries were ap- pointed to settle these questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the occupa- tion by the French of the islands of St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French navy. Ac- cording to the plans of Rouille, the Fi-ench Min- ister of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly the occa- sion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by the mother coun- tries. A French writer, who flourished about this time, the Abbe Raynal, ascribes this clan- destine warfare to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking gradually to re- cover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels wherever found. ... It being known that a considerable French fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for America, Ad- miral Boscawen was despatched thither, and cap- tured two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755. Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. ... A naval war between England and France was now un- avoidable; but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also to be mixed up with a European war. The complicated relations of the European system again caused these two wars to run into one, though their origin had nothing in 951 ENGLAND, 1754-1755. Chatham's Adni in istra Hon. ENGLAND, 1757-1760. common. France and England, whose quarrel hy in the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and decided the fate of Canada on tlie plains of Germany. ^ The war in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' AVar, was chiefly caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and tlie subserviency of a royal courtezan [JIadame Pompadour], who liecame the tool of these passions." — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern. Europe, hk. 6, ch. 5 (». 3).— "The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an Euro- pean war at all ; it was a w'ar between England and France on Colonial questions with which the restof Europe had nothing todo; but the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe, joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector of Hanover, made it almost cer- tain that a war between England and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from charging on the English Goverament of the time — for it was they, and not the French, who forced on the war — as Macaulay might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen, of the Rus- sians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown down at Kunersdorf . The States of the Continent had many old enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result ; and these would probably have given rise to a war some da)', even if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be re- membered that it was the work of England that the war took place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and arbitrary pro- ceedings by which it was forced on, we may well question whether English writers have any right to reprobate Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral in itself and disas- trous to the world. If the Prussians were high- way robbers, the English were pirates. . . . The origin of the war between England and France, if a struggle which had hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said to have an origin, was the struggle for America." — A. R. Ropes, Tlie Cmucs of the Seven Tears' War (Royal Hist. Soc, Traiuaetions, new series, v. 4). Also in : Lord JIahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist, of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 31-32 (v. 4).— F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, ch. 1-7. — See, also, Gek- mant: a. D. 1755-1756; Canada: A. D. 1750- 1753; and Onio (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754. A. D. 175s (April). — Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the colo- nies by act of Parliament. See United States OP Am. : A. D. 175o. A. D. 1755 (June). — Boscawen's naval vic- tory over the French. See Canada: A. D. 1755 (June). A. D. 1755 (July).— Braddock's defeat in America. See Ohio (Valley) : A. D. 1755. A. D. 1755 (September).— Victory at Lake George. See Can.s.d.\: A. I). 1755 (September). A. D. 1756. — Loss of Minorca and reverses in America. See Minorca: A. D. 1756; and Canada: A. D. 1756-1757. A. D. 1757-1759.- Campaigns on the Conti- nent. — Defence of Hanover. See Gebm.any: A D 1757 (.July — December), to 1759 (April —August). A. D. 1757-1760. — The great administration of the elder Pitt.—" In 17.54 Henry Pclham died. The important consequence of his death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fo.x for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the Forces, and Jlurray, afterwards to be famous as Lord JIansfleld, for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much disliked by tlie King to be available for the position. Fox for a while refused to accept it. and Murray was unwilling to do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the professional path along which he was to move to such dis- tinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never recov- ered the damage which his reputation and his influence suffered by this amazing act. . . . The Duke of Newcastle's IMinistry soon fell. New- castle was not a man who had the slightest ca- pacity for controlling or directing a policy of war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had now broken out. One lamenta- ble event in the war has to be recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was the capture of ]\Iinorca by the French under the ro- mantic, gallant, and profligate Due de Richelieu. The event is memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate Admiral Byng [see Mlnorca: A. D. 1756]. . . . The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then a coalition of another kind was formed, which included Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance with that great Frede- rick whose genius and daring were like his own. " — Justin McCarthy, Hist, of the Four Oeorges, v. 2, ch. 41. — "Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State, with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme direc- tion of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man who could have given much annoy- ance to the new Government, was silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the con- tinuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was tempting. . . . The first acts of the new administration were characterized rather by vigour than by judg- ment. Expeditions were sent against different parts of the French coast with little success. . . . But soon conquests of a very different kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succes- sion of victories imdoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought, not barren, raised to the highest 952 ENGLAND, 1757-1760. Chatliavi's Administration. ENGLAND, 1758. point the fame of the minister to whom the con- duct of the war had been intrusted. In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensing- ton Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church, amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an immense mul- titude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all the great towns of England. Parlia- ment met only to decree thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur, supplies more than double of those which had been given during the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe ; then Ticonderoga ; then Niag- ara. The Toulon squadron was completely de- feated by Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy and triumph. 'Envy and faction wei-e forced to join in the general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings. The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke. Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French coast. The shore was rocky : the night was black : the wind was furious : the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had long been un- known. No British seaman was disposed to err on the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack could not be made with- out the greatest danger. ' You have done your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were de- stroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany. The year 1760 came; and still tri- umph followed triumph. Montreal was taken ; the whole Province of Canada was subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of dis- asters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in the East. In the space of three years the English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been de- feated in every part of India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Car- natic, the authority of the East India Company was more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurung- zebe had ever been. On the continent of Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important all}', the King of Prussia ; and he was attacked, not only by France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all dilficulties. Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and able Sov- ereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assis- tance as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show of reason, that it would be tmworthy of the English people to suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in an English quarrel. He assured his country- men that they should be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such was the ascendency which his eloquence, his success, his high situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had been no example, and which have never since been imitated. . . . The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of Hanover] were driven out. ... In the meantime, the nation exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. . . . The success of our arms was perhaps (jwing less to the skill of his [Pitt's] dispo- sitions than to the national resources and the national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the emergency, that the national re.sources were contributed with unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. . . . The situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any public man in English history. He had conciliated the King ; he domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the people ; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride." — Lord Macaulay, First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham {Essays, v. 3). Also in: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist. of Eric/., 1713-1783, ch. 33-36 {v. 4).— SirE. Creasy, Memoirs of Eminent Etonians, ch. 4. A. D. 1758 (June— August).— The Seven Years War. — Abortive expeditions against the coast of France. — Earlj* in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have thought the proper means by which England should assist in a continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of little value. St. JIalo, against which it was directed, was found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their boats ready to laud, they were ordered to re-embark, and the fleet came home. Another somewhat similar ex- pedition was sent out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a simi- lar assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while engaged in re-embarka- tion, it was attacked by some French troops 953 ENGLAND, 1758. NavaC Victories. ENGLAND, 1760-1763. which had been hastily collected, and severely- handled."— J. P. Bright, Hist, of Eng., period 3, p. 1037. A. D. 1758 (July — November). — The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg and recovery of Fort Duquesne. — Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga. See Cakada: A. D. IT08; and Cape Breton Island: A. D. 1758-1760. A. D. 1758-1761. — Breaking of French power in India. See India: A. D. 1758-1761. A. D. 1759. — Great victories in America. — Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec. See Canada: A. D. 1759. A. D. 1759 (August — November). — British naval supremacy established. — Victories off Lagos and in Quib^ron Bay. — "Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make prepa- rations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small squad- ron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was as- sembled at Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Due d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron, under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably have succeeded three or even two yeai-s before, but the opportunity was gone. England was no longer in ' that ener- vate state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with the support of the newly created militia, would probably have been equal to the emergency ; but a more effectual bulwark was found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast, ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet, under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was com- pelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in water and provisions and to refit some of the ships. Hereupon TNI. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast, passed the straits with- out molestation. Boscawen, however, though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase, and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of Portugal, where an engagement took place [Aug. 18], in which three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt. The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The discom- fiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was even more complete. On November 9 Ad- miral Sir Edward Hawke, who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put to sea with 31 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same day, Hawke, with 23 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay, where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay, judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English, recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action ; but on their nearer approach clianged his mind, and ran for shelter among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little known to the English, who had no pilots ; but Hawke. whom no peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all sail after them. With- out regard to lines of battle, every ship was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy, the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence many of the English ships never got into action at all ; but the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was needed if the enemy were not to escape. ... As long as daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad spectators of the white flag's disgrace. ' ... By nightfall two French ships, the Thesee 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two, the Formidable 80, and the Heros 74, had struck. The Soleil Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did that of the Heros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in the shallow water ; the rest got away and took shelter in the Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever got out again. With two hours more of day- light Hawke thought he could liave taken or de- stroyed all, as he was almost up with the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the Esse.x 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded. The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had succeeded in getting out from Dun- kirk, and for some montlis was a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the following year an end was put to his career. Por the rest of the war the French never ventured to meet the English in battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval and commercial supremacy of England was assured." — F. W. Longman, Frederick the Qreat and tlie Seven Tears War, cIl. 12, sect. 3. Also in: C. D. Yonge, Hist, of the British Navy, V. 1, ch. 13.— .1. Eutick, Hist, of tlie late War, 11. 4, pp. 241-290. A. D. 1760. — Completed conquest of Canada. — Successes of the Prussians and their allies. See Canada: A. D. 1760; andGEKM.^NT: A. D. 1760. A. D. 1760-1763. — Accession of George III. — His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship. — Retirement of the elder Pitt. — Rise and fall of Bute. — The Grenville Ministry. — "When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had been governed for more than half a century by the great ^Vhig families which 954 ENGLAND, 1760-1763. Beginning of the reign of George III. ENGLAND, 1760-1763. liad been brought iuto the foreground by the revolution of 1688. . . . Under Walpole's wise and powerful sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this simple lesson had constituted pretty much tlie whole of his education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant king that ever sat upon the Eng- lish throne : and so far as general culture is con- cerned, this opinion is undoubtedly correct. . . . Nevertheless . . . George III. was not destitute of a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the dogged in- dustry with which he pursued it. In an age where some of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in scarcely hidden con- cubinage, George III. was decorous in personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent for administration, and he devoted this talent most assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an adept in gaining men's confi- dence by a show of interest, and securing their aid by dint of fair promises ; and when he found them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton insult. Any one who dared to disagree with him upon even the slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred. As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad views and inde- pendent character he nursed the bitterest ran- cour. . . . Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in 1760, had it for his first and chief- est thought to break down the growing system of cabinet government in England." — J. Fiske, The American Revolution, ch. 1 (». 1). — "The dis- solution of Parliament, shortly after his accession, afforded an opportunity of strengthening the par- liamentary connection of the king's friends. Par- liament was kept sitting while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the court candi- dates, and using every e.vertion to secure their return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the ministers, in order to nomi- nate his own friends, but even encouraged opposi- tion to such ministers as he conceived not to be in his interest. . . . Lord Bute, the originator of the new policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful promotion. He was not con- nected with the great families who had acquired a preponderance of political influence ; he was no parliamentary debater: his manners were un- popular: he was a courtier rather than a poli- tician: his intimate relations with the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above all, he was a Scotchman. . . . Immediately after the king's accession he had been made a privy coun- cillor, and admitted into the cabinet. An ar- rangement was soon afterwards concerted, by which Lord Holdemesse retired from office with a pension, and Lortl Bute succeeded him as Sec- retary of State. It was now the object of the court to break up the existing ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been difiicult to over- throw tliem. But there were already jealousies amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most powerful and popular of the min- isters, and his colleagues. He desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war with this country [see France: A. D. 1761 (August)]. Though war minister he was op- posed by all his colleagues except Lord Tem- ple. He bore himself haughtily at the council, — declared that he had been called to the min- istry by the voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender his resignation. The king overpowered the re- tiring minister with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his popularity. . . . The same Gazette which announced his resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension, and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite. On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute be- came the most influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole direction of the House of Lords. . . . His ascendency provoked the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran min- ister, the Duke of Newcastle : who had hitherto distributed all the patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted, ... At length, in May 1763, his grace, after frequent disagree- ments in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign. And now, the object of the court being at length attained, Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as First Lord of the Treasury. . . . The king and his minister were resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative. Prelimi- naries of a treaty of peace with Prance having been agreed upon, against which a strong popu- lar feeling was aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who ventured to disap- prove them. The Duke of Devonshire having declined to attend the council summoned to de- cide upon the peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his office of Lord Chamber- lain. A few days afterwards the king, with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of privy councillors. ... No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he . . . resigned his place in the household. A more general proscription of the "Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton, and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of Par- liament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. . . . Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of the Whig 955 ENGLAND, 1760-1763. Wilkes and • The North Briton." ENGLAND, 1762-1764. party. All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of peace, were dismissed. . . . The preliminaries of peace were approved by Parlia- ment; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in the success of the court, exclaimed, ' Now my son is king of England.' But her exultation was premature. . . . "These stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an organised op- position. . . . The fall of the king's favoured minister was even more sudden than his rise. . . . Afraid, as he confessed, ' not only of falling himself, but of involving his royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7, 1763], — to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king himself, — before he had held ofBce for eleven months. . . . He retreated to the interior cabi- net, whence he could direct more securely the measures of the court; having previously ne- gotiated the appointment of Mr. George Gren- ville as his successor, and arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry of Mr. Gren ville was constituted in a manner favourable to the king's personal views, and was expected to be under the control of himself and his favour- ite."— T.E. May, Const. Eist.ofEiig., 1760-1860, ch. 1. Also in : J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of tlie Life and Reign of Oeorge III., ch. 1-10 (v. 1). — The Oren- iiille Papers, v. 1-3. — W. Massey, Hist, of Eng.: Reign of George III., ch. 2-3 (». 1).— G. O. Tre- velyan. Early Hist, of Charles James Fox, cli. 4. A. D. 1760-1775. — Crown, Parliament and Colonies. — The conflicting theories of their re- lations. See United States op Am. ; A. D. 1760-177.5. A. D. 1761-1762.— The third Family Com- pact of the Bourbon kings. — War with Spain. See Fb.\nce : A. D. 1761 (August). A. D. 1761-1762. — The Seven Years 'War* Last Campaigns in Germany. See Germany : A. D. 1761-1703. A. D. 1762. — Capture of Havana. See Cuba; A. D. 1.51-1-18.51. A. D. 1762-1764.— "The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes. — " The pop- ular dislike to the new system of Government by courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the minister whose as- cendancy had provoked this grievous kind of op- position. The leader of the host of libellers was John Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self- possession which are indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world, with the manners of a gentleman, were among the accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely illus- trated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he engaged in public life, Wilkes had become in- famous for his debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon re- ligion and decency. Profligacy of morals, how- ever, has not in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a patriot. . . . Wilkes' jour- nal, which originated with the administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was hap- pily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the politital press of the present day ; but at a time when the char- acters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public estimation, they were protected, not un- advisedly perhaps, from the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. ... It had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now ac- knowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat the Speech from the Throne, on the open- ing of Parliament, as the manifesto of the minis- ter ; and in that point of view, it had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes presvimed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree which would have seemed temper-ate and even tame had he spoken to the same purport in his place in Parlia- ment, it was thought necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secre- tary of State to seize — not any person named — but ' the authors, printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons were ar- rested and detained in custody for several days; but as it was found that none of them could be brought within the description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for false imprisonment against the messengers ; and in one of these actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the two Im- portant questions as to the claim of a Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to jus- tices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the legality of a warrant which did not speci- fy any individual by name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of King's Bench. . . . The Court of King's Bench . . . intimated a strong opinion against the Crown upon the Important constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed the case to stand over for further argument ; but when the case came on again, the Attorney-Gen- eral Yorke prudently declined any further agita- tion of the questions. . . . These proceedings were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765, long after the administration under which they were instituted had ceased to exist. . . . The prosecution of Wilkes himself was pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of Parliament, which extends to every case except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a ser- vility which belonged to the worst times of pre- rogative, advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception, as having a tendency to a breach of the peace ; and upon this perver- sion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of State ; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was brought up be- fore the Court of Common Pleas. . . . The ar- gument which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once rejected 956 ENGLAND, 1762-1764. Repeal of the Stamp Act. ENGLAND, 1765-1768. by an independent court of justice; and the re- sult was the liberation of Wilkes from custody. Cut the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this disappointment. An ex-officio prose- cution for libel was immediately instituted against tlie member for Aylesbury; he was de- prived of his commission as colonel of the Buck- inghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from the lord-lieuten- ancy of the same county, and from the Privy Council. When Parliament assembled in the au- tumn, the first business brought forward by the Government was this contemptible aft'air — a pro- ceeding not merely foolish and undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and de- cency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is manifest that the Government should have left the law to take its course un- prejudiced. But the House of Commons was now required to pronounce upon the very subject- matter of inquiry which had been referred to the decision of a court of law ; and this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister, readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extrava- gant and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of the Gov- ernment, then pressed for an immediate decision on the question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner, insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending In his place; but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they resolved ' that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the or- dinary course of the laws in the speedy and ef- fectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a mem- ber of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was consistent with the lofti- ness of his character. . . . The conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower House. . . . The session was principally occu- pied by the i^roceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament had ele- vated into a person of the first importance. His name was coupled with that of Liberty ; and when the executioner appeared to carry into ef- fect the sentence of Parliament upon ' The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their hatred and contempt for the Court faction by burning in its stead the jack- boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his supposed royal patroness. . . . Wilkes himself, however, was forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after the Christmas re- cess, according to order, his excuse was eagerly declared invalid ; a vote of expulsion immediately followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for Aylesbury." — W. Massey, Sist. of Eng. : Beign of George III. , ch. 4 {v, 1). Also in : J. E. T. Rogers, HUtm'ical OUanings, V. 2, ch. 3. — Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Sist. of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 41-43 (v. 5). A. D. 1763. — The end and results of the Seven Years War : The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg. — America to be Eng- lish, not French. See Seven Years War. A. D. 1763-1764. — Determination to tax the American colonies. — The Sugar (or Molasses) Act. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1763- 1764. A. D. 1764. — The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its consequences. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1704. A. D. 1765. — Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1765. A. D. 1765-1768. — Grenville dismissed. — The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries. — Repeal of the Stamp Act. — Fresh trouble in the American colonies. — "Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George after- wards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he recovered he projiosed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency Bill should be brought in, limit- ing the king's choice of a Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers, however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry, persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult on his parent, apparently through lack of considera- tion. Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of them. AVith this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], -offering almost any terms." But no arrangement was practica- ble, and the king was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers he detested. "He was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a burden to him under George Gren- ville's domination, and he determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ again. Pitt and Temple still prov- ing obdurate, Cumberland opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. . . . The new Ministry was composed as follows: Rock- ingham became First Lord of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer; New- castle, Privj' Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. 957 ENGLAND. 1765-1768. TAc Middlesex Eltctioyis. ENGLAND, 1768-1774. . . . Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power of language or gov- ernment. . . . He was totally free from any sus- picion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than talent in the Ministry altogether. . . . The back-bone of the party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to effect cer- tain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act [see United States op Am. : A. D. 1766], which had caused so much indig- nation among the Americans ; and at the same time passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. . . . The king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his Ministers. . . . The con- duct of Pitt in refusing to join them was a de- cided mistake, and more. He was really at one with them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to form a coalition, in which were included men of the most opposite views — "King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham re- fused to take any office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the leader- ship, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham. Charles Townshend became Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, and Lord North, the leader of the ' King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The Ministry included Shelburne, Barre, Con- way, Northington, Barrington, Camden, Granby — all men of the most opposite views. . . . Tliis second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage. ... As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an uncongenial atmosphere. . . . His name, too, had lost a great deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.'. . . There were other dif- ficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had increased, and it was so much intensified by ins- tating gout, that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His disease later almost ap- proached madiless. . . . The Ministry drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and _ wave of opinion like a water-logged ship ; and ' it was only the utter want of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet, and he rapidly assumed the most promi- nent position. He had always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and paper [see United States op Am. : A. D. 1766- 1767, and 1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. . . . This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its author, in September ; and then the weakness of the Minis- try became so obvious that, as Chatham still con- tinued incapable, some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence. Lords Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwicli joined the Ministry. Lord Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst that had gov- erned England since the days of the Cabal ; and the short period of its existence was marked by a succession of arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed to Chatliam's views ; and yet with singular irony his nominal connection with it was not severed for some time " — that is, not until the following year, 1768. — B. C. Skottowe, Our Hanoverian Kings, pp. 234-239. Also m: The Grenville Papers, v. 3-4. — C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, d. 2. — E. Lodge, Por- traits, V. 8, c7t. 3. A. D. 1767-1769. — The first war with Hyder AH, of Mysore. See India: A. D, 1707-1769. A. D. 1768-1770. — The quartering of troops in Boston and its ill consequences. See Bos- ton: A. D. 1768; and 1770. A. D. 1768-1774.— John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again. — The Middlesex elections. — In March, 1768, AVilkes, though out- lawed by the court, returned to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king ; but his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved and writs issued for a new elec- tion, he offered himself as a candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,347 votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this decision he issued an address to the freehold- ers of Middlesex. The election took place at Brentford, on the 38th of March. At the close of the poll the numbers were — Mr. Wilkes, 1,393 ; Mr. Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which astonished the public and terrified the ministry . The mob was in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to illu- minate their houses and to shout for ' Wilkes and liberty. ' It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. ... A month after the election he wrote to Lord North : ' Though relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in your hatred of any law- less proceeding, yet I think it highly expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and must be effected. ' What the sovereign counselled was duly accom- plished. Before his expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having surren- dered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal ; consequently it was reversed, and sen- tence was passed for the offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000, and im- prisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he was rescued by the mob ; but as soon as he could escape out of the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself into the custody of the Marshal of the lijng's Bench. Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense multitude assembled be- fore the prison, but, balked in its purpose of 958 ENGLAND, 1768-1774. Letters of Junius, ENGLAND, 1769-1772. escorting the popular favourite to the House, became furious, and commenced a riot. Soldiers ■were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired, -wounding and slauglitering several per- sons ; among others, they butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house, and ■who was mistaken for a rioter they liad pursued. At the inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the magistrate viho ordered the firing, and the soldier who did the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a reward for his services, a pen- sion of one shilling a day. A general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington con- veyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed, assuring them ' that every possible re- gard shall be shown to them ; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should liappen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law can author- ise and this office can give. ' This approbation of what the troops had done was the necessary sup- plement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent before the riot, and intimating that force was to he used without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His observations on tlie latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pre- text for his expulsion from tlie House of Com- mons. Ten days afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five votes only. On the following day the House resolved ' that John Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament expelled tliis House, was and is in- capable of being elected a member to serve in this present Parliament ' ; and his election was de- clared void. Again the freeholders of Middle- sex returned him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for Lut- trell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had been outraged in the persons of tlie Middlesex electors, and a subservi- ent majority in the House of Commons tliat did not hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying tlie personal resentment of a revengeful and ob- stinate king. The cry of ' Wilkes and liberty ' was raised in quarters where the very name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident that not the law only liad been violated in his person, but that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound. Wilkes was over- whelmed with suijstantial marks of sympathy. In the cour.se of a few weeks £20,000 were sub- scribed to pay his debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at length done what was right between him and one of the Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the other having been removed by death beyond the reach of j ustice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages. These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid succession to the offices — then much sought after, because held in high honour — of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of Lon- don. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting the resolutions of his in- capacity to sit in the House formally expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although tlie latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and energetic opponent of the war with America." — W. F. Rae, Jo/i7i Wilkes (Fortnightly Rev., Sept., 1868, v. 10). Also in : The same, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, pt. 1.— G. O. Trevelyan, Early Hist, of Charles James Fox, ch. 5-6, and 8. A. D. 1769-1772. — The Letters of Junius. — "One of the newspapers in London at this period was the 'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the day ; and he readily received any contributions of a like tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a writer whose letters begin- ning at the latest in April, 1767, continued fre- quent through that and the ensuing year. It was the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and Brutus. It does not ap- pear, however, that these letters (excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in ability, or still less in acrimony. . . . Such was the state of these pub- lications, not much rising in interest above the common level of many such at other times, when on the 31st of January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or superior moderation ; it contained, on the con- trary, a fierce and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places, including the Commander- in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its prede- cessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and respectable opponent. Sir William Drajjer, General in the army and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed with his own name, and de- fending the character and conduct of Lord Gran- by. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow. Sir Wil- liam more than once replied ; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the controversy. . . . These victories over a man of rank and station such as Draper's gave Importance to the name of Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly expected by the public, and care- fully prepared by the author. He did not indeed 959 ENGLAND, 1769-1772. Lord North. ENGLAND, 1770. altogether cease to write under other names; sometimes especially adopting tlie part of a by- stander, and the signature of Philo-Junius ; but it was as Junius that his main and most elabo- rate attacks were made. Nor was it long before he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton. Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford, — an attack, however, of which the sting is felt b}' his descendants to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known statesmen or well-known writers — Burke or Dunning, Boyd or Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Ham- ilton — flew from mouth to mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground. Never- theless the stir and talk which they created added not a little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and eloquence. ' The most impor- tant secret of our times 1' cries Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that ' the Bible and Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are for- gotten ! ' Mystery, as I have said, was one in- gredient to the popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The verdict in Woodfall's case was; Guilty of printing and publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to ulterior proceed- ings. But in the temper of the public at that period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the Government, in augmented reputa- tion to the libeller. During the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invec- tives against the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who had presided at the trials of the printers ; he plunged into the full tide of City politics ; and he engaged in a keen controversy with the Rev. John Home, afterwards Home Tooke. The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it commences, until January 1773, when it terminates, amounts to 69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Home. . . . Besides the letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to Mr George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe ; all three were written in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important of all, per- haps, are tlie private notes addressed to Mr. Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed in general with the letter C. ; 6orae only a few lines in length ; but many of great value towards deciding the question of authorship. It seems that the packets contain- ing the letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself ; more com- monly they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the streets. When some com- munication from Mr. Woodfall in reply was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be ad- dressed to him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at the bar of some coflfee- house ... It may be doubted whether Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. . . . When dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me.' " — Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist, of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 47 (». 5).— The following list of fifty -one names of persons to whom the letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and Pseudonyms " : James Adair, M. P. ; Cap- tain Allen ; Lieut. -Col. Isaac Barre, M. P. ; Wil- liam Henry Cavendish Bentinck ; Mr. Bickerton ; Hugh M'Aulay Boyd ; Edmund Burke ; AVilliam Burke ; John Butler, Bishop of Hereford ; Lord Camden ; John Lewis De Lolme ; John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton; Samuel Dyer; Henry Flood ; Sir Philip Francis ; George III. ; Edward Gibbon; Richard Glover; Henry Grat- tan ; William Greatrakes ; George Grenville ; James Grenville; William Gerard Hamilton; James Hollis ; Thomas Hollis ; Sir George Jack- son; Sir William Jones; John Kent; Major- General Charles Lee; Charles Lloyd; Thomas Lyttleton; Laughlin Maclean; Rev. Edmund Marshall ; Thomas Paine ; William Pitt, Earl of Chatham ; the Duke of Portland ; Thomas Pow- nall; Lieut. -Col. Sir Robert Rich ; John Roberts; Rev. Philip Rosenhagen; George, Viscount' Sackville ; the Earl of Shelburne ; Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield; Richard Suett; Earl Temple ; John Home Tooke ; Horace Wal- pole; Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughbor- ough; John Wilkes; James Wilmot, D. D. ; Daniel Wray. Also in: G. W. Cooke, Hist, of Party, v. 3, ch. 6.— C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, v. 2.— Lord Macaulay, Warroi Hastings (Essays, v. 5). — A. Bisset, Sho?'t Hist, of the English Parlia- ment, ch. 7. A. D. 1770.— Fall of the Grafton Ministry. — Beginning of the administration of Lord North. — " The incompetency of the ministry was . . . becoming obvious. In the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder of hunting and the turf than of ])olitics, had by his indolence suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named party, and uncon- stitutional action had been the result which had brought discontent in England to the verge of open outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own Cabinet. Prance too, under Choiseul, in 960 ENGLAND, 1770. Parliament and the Press. ENGLAND, 1771. alliance with Spain, was beginning to think of re- venge for the losses of the Seven Years' "War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the Oppo- sition began toclo.se their ranks. Chatham, yield- ing again to the necessities of party, made a public profession of friendship with Temple and George Grenville ; and though there was no cor- dial connection, there was external alliance be- tween the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of pub- lic affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the murrain among 'horned beasts,' — a speech not of a king, but, said Junius, of ' a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an amendment when the address in answer to this speech was proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris ; he blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America, which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent. Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the persecu- tion of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals, attacked and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby, one of the most popular men in England, followed the same course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-Gen- eral, also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost, but was followed up by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of the nation. . . . Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet the Opposition, and in his heart still admir- ing Chatham, and much disliking business, ho suddenly and unexpectedly gave in his resigna- tion the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion. The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands, but there was no real cordiality between tlie two sections. . . . The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of this disunion. To him it was of paramount im- portance to retain his friends in oflSce, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the po- sition of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the difEerent sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any united action, they were astonished to find the old ministry re- constituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister . . . had great capacity for business and administration, and much sound sense ; he was a first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn aside tlie bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal influence, from whatever source derived. North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government, and of the King's policy, became so evident that the clamour for a 961 really responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is closed the great constitu- tional struggle of the early part of the reign — the struggle of the King, supported by the un represented masses, and the more liberal and in- dependent of those who were represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that struggle the King had been vic- torious. But he did not recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that the people had other objects much beyond his own." — J. F. Bright, Sist. of Eng., period 3, pp. 1057-1060. Also in : Cor. of Oeorge III. with Lord North, v. 1. — W. Massey, Hist, of Eng. : Reign of Oeorge III. , ch. 10-13 (». 1). — J. Adolphus, Hist, of Eng. : Reign of George III, ch. 17 (v. 1). — E. Burke, Thoughts on the Present Discontents (Works, v. 1). A. D. 1770-1773. — Repeal of the Tovynshend duties, except on tea. — The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1770, and 177S-1773; and Boston: A. D. 1773. A. D. 1771.— Last contention of Parliament against the Press. — Freedom of reporting se- cured.— "The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the exclu- sion of strangers, which had long existed (and which still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors. It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other periodical journals, to pub- lish the debates of Parliament, under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness and ac- curacy, from speeches furnished at length by the speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less authenticity. One of the most attrac- tive features of the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an article which purported to be a report of the debates in Parlia- ment. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and derived his information from persons who could seldom give him more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius. Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify, the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of which the license of reporting had been restricted ; for there was no order of either House specifically prohibiting the publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting, therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the pro- ceedings of Parliament should take place during ENGLAND, 1771. Revolt of the American Colonies. ENGLAND, 1776-1778. the session. There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals would have gone on, with the tacit conuivauce of tlie parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses, had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they would otherwise have quietly con- ceded. It was Colonel Onslow, member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable members." — Wm. Massey, Hist, of England, v. 3, ch. 15.- — " Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance ; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an as- sault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious Johu Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the mes- senger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of having committed any crime.' These pro- ceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any inter- ference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence — its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long con- tinued beset with many difliculties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and caj^riciously em- ployed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until 1875] any one member by merely ' spying ' strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal." — T. P. Taswell-Langmead, Eng. Const. Hist., ch. 17. Also in: R. F. D. Palgrave, The House of Com- mons, lect. 2. — T. E. May, Const. Hist, of Eng., ch. 7 (i). 1). A. D. 1772. — The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands. See Slavery, Negro: A. D. 1685-1772. A. D. 1773. — Reconstitution of the Govern- ment of British India. See India: A. D. 1770- 1773. A. D. 1774. — The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act. — The First Continental Congress in America. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1774. A. D. 1774. — Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made efficient by James Watt. See Steam Engine: A. D. 1765- 1785. A. D. 1775.— The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. — Lexington. — Concord. — The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered. — Ticonderoga. — Bunker Hill. — The Second Continental Congress. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1775. A. D. 1775-1776. — Successful defence of Canada against American invasion. See Canada: A. D. 1775-1776. A. D. 1776. — War measures against the col- onies. — The drift toward American independ- ence. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1776 (January — June). A. D. 1776-1778.— The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their relations to the American War. — "The undoubted popu- larity of the war [in America] in its first stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its maximum. . . . The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and with the King. . . . The Declaration of Inde- l^endence, and the known overtures of the Ameri- cans to France, were deemed the climax of in- solence and ingratitude. The damage done to English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness. ... In every stage of the contest the influence of the Opposi- tion was employed to trammel the Government. . . . The statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of Washing- ton's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other writer ; but there is no reason to question his assertion that the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of Parliament dur- ing the whole course of the war wished success to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs. . . . While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did the ut- most in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully realise how completely at this time he assumed the position not only of a jirime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending, directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of the Government. . . . 'Every means of distressing America,' wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly sup- ported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's friends who were most active in pro- moting all measures of violence. . . . The war was commonly called the ' King's war, ' and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King. The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most culpable in this matter, was 962 ENGLAND, 1776-1778. War i7i America. ENGLAND, 1778-1780. Lord North. . . . The publication of the corre- spondence of George III. . . . supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears from this correspondence that for the space of about live years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody, costly, and dis- astrous war in direct opposition to his own judgment and to liis own wishes. . . . Again and again he entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again and again he yielded to the request of the King, who threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne. . . . The King was determined, under no circum- stances, to treat with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their independence; but he ac- knowledged, after the surrender of Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable, that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for. ... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme reluctance, and in con- sequence of the unanimous vote of the Cabinet, that new propositions should be m&de to the Americans." These overtures, conveyed to Amer- ica by three Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment was one of the most terrible in English history. Eng- land had not an ally in the world. . . . Eng- land, already exhausted by a war which its dis- tance made peculiarly terrible, had to confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. . . . There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all jjatriotic Englishmen were turned. ... If any statesman could, at the last moment, con- ciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alli- ance, and kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord North implored the King to ac- cept his resignation, and to send for Chatham. Bute, tlie old Tory favourite, breaking his long silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord Manstield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said, with tears in liis eyes, tliat unless the King sent for Chatham the ship would as- suredly go down. . . . The King was unmoved. He consented indeed — and he actually author- ised Lord North to make the astounding propo- sition — -to receive Chatham as a subordinate minister to North. . . . This episode appears to me the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold." — W. E. H. Lecky, Hist, of Eng. in the ISth Century, ch. 14 (». 4). — "George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins which were not exclusively their own. The min- ister, indeed, was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the natural organ and rep- resentative of all the lurking ignorance and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden." — J. Morley, Edmund Burke: a Historical Study, p. 135. — "No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation. And let us even say a word- for the British nation also. Had the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George and the British nation were simply not wiser than other people. I be- lieve that you may turn the pages of history from the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when any king or any commonwealth, fi'eely and willingly, without compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the acknowledgment of American independence. King George still called himself King of Prance. Remember that, when the title was given up, some people thought it un- wise to give it up. Remember that some people in our own day regretted the separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser." — E. A. Freeman, Tlie English People in its Three Homes {Lectures to American Au- diences), pp. 183-184. Also ln: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.— LotA. Brougham, Hist. Sketches of Statesmen in the Reign of Oeorge III. — T. Mac- knight, Hist, of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke, ch. 22-26 (v. 2). A. D. 1778. — Warwrith France. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1778 (Feisruart). A. D. 1778-1780.— Repeal of Catholic penal laws. — The Gordon No-Popery Riots. — "The Quebec Act of 1774 [see Canada: A. D. 1763- 1774], establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier have been impossible, and it was justly considered a remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should have created no serious disturbances in the country. . . . The success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later, to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still subject. . . . The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of £100 to any informer who iirocured the conviction of a Catholic priest performing his functions in England, and there were occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to the utmost in order to defeat them. . . . The worst part of the persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III,, and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these and also Pa- pists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment, and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing land. . . . It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was carried witnout a divi- sion in either House, without any serious opposi- tion from the bench of bishops, and with the concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to England only, but the Lord Ad- vocate promised, in the ensuing session, to intro- 963 ENGLAND, 1778-1780. Oordon No-Popery Riots. ENGLAND, 1778-1780. duce a similar measure for Scotland. It was hoped tliat a measure which was so manifestly moderate and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of Scotland. The Gen- eral Assembly of the Scotch Established Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending, and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many in- cendiary resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills, newspapers, and sermons, and a ' Committee for the Protestant Interests ' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. . . . Furi- ous riots broke out In January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of many Protes- tants who were believed to sympathise with the Relief Bill were attacked, and among the num- ber was that of Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not suffered to fire in their defence. . . . The flame soon spread southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery had been frequently ap- pearing in the London newspapers. Many mur- murs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent the or- dinary watchmen were to cope with it. . . . The fanatical party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very ordinary talents, and with nothing to rec- ommend him but his connection with the ducal house of Gordon. . . . A ' Protestant Associa- tion,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanat- ics, was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and presided over by Lord George Gordon, It was determined that 20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about half-past two on the afternoon of Fri- day, June 2, that three great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing blue cock- ades, and carrying a petition which was said to have been signed by near 120,000 persons, ar- rived by different roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to have been only to in- timidate, but they very soon proceeded to actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted, compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout ' No Popery I ' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal ; and many of them, but especially the members of the House of Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192 to 7 to adjourn its considera- tion till the 6th. Lord George Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery, and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gor- don, one of his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers' gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other ordinary oflUcials protected the House, while the mob is said at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Jlinis- ter's chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The Bavarian Minister's chapel in "War- wick Street Golden Square was next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some slight scuflling ensued, and thir- teen of the rioters were captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force, for Satur- day and the greater part of Sunday passed with little disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in Moorflelds, where a considera- ble Catholic population resided. Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels utterly ruined." — W. E. H. Lecky, HUt. of Eng. in the 18th Century, ch. 13 (». 3). — "On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. . . . Not- withstanding, however, that the town might now be said to have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three da3'S, it does not appear that any more decided measures were adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were per- petrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also broken open . . . and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks were likewise made upon sev- eral . . . private houses. . . . But the most la- mentable of all the acts of destruction yet per- petrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which they closed the day of madness and crime — the entire demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable Lord Chief Jus- 9G4 ENGLAND, 1778-1780. Rodney's Victory, ENGLAND, 1780-1782. tice, ia Bloomsbury Square. . . . The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection : and it was felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the infuriated multitudes who braved their power. . . . The King's Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Bor- ough Clink, the Surrey Bridewell, were all burned today. . . . The Mansion House, the 3Iu- seum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is understood, marked for destruc- tion. Lists of these and the other buildings which it was intended to attack were circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned the fire of the military. . . . Among other houses which were set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr. Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. . . . The worst consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many indeed drank themselves literally dead ; and many more, who had rendered them- selves unable to move, perished in the midst of the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in different quarters of the town. . . . By Thursday morning . . . the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that the rioters would be speedily overpowered. . . . The soldiers attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the evening. . . . On this first day after the close of the riots, ' the metropolis, ' says the Annual Register, ' presented in many places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.'. . . Of the persons ap- prehended and brought to trial, 59 were capitally convicted ; and of these more than 20 were exe- cuted; the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a distant land. . . . Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots, was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted. — Sketches of Poptilar Tumults, sect. 1, ch. 3. Also in : J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., ch. 34 (». 2).— H. Walpole, Journal of the Reign of Qeorge III., v. 2, pp. 403- i^i,L— Annual Register, 1780, pp. 254-287.— C. Dickens, Barnahj Rudge. — -W. J. Amherst, Hist, of Catholic Emancipation, v. 1, eh. 1-5. A. D. 1780-1782. — Declining strength of the government. — Rodney's great naval victory. — The siege of Gibraltar. — "The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow of the personal government of George III., was now close at hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour. In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of that year. Parliament was dissolved, although the king complained that his expenses for pur- poses of corruption had been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one. Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North and his colleagues. The ex- ample of American resistance had told upon Ire- laud. . . . For more than a year there had been war in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir Eyre Coote. In Jlay, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola, thus driving the British from their last position in Florida. In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a single friend. The mari- time supremacy of England was, however, im- paired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships encountered the French near the island of Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued, and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and Grasse was taken prisoner, — the first French commander-in- chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was eliminated from the situation at a single blow ; and in the course of the summer the English achieved another great success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, Eng- land, defeated in the United States, remained vic- torious and defiant as regarded the other parties to the war." — J. Fiske, American Revolution . ch. 15 (ii. 2). — " Gibraltar . . . had been closely in- vested for nearly three years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the place ; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of 1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success ; in the month of November, the enemy were driven from their approaches, and the works themselves were al- most destroyed by a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the fall of Minorca 965 ENGLAND, 1780-1782. Siege of Gibraltar. ENGLAND, 1782-1783. enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of Gib- raltar. De Grillou himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez, assumed the chief com- mand. . . . The garrison of Gibraltar comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well acquainted with the for- tress, had little hope of taking it from the land side, but relied with confidence on the formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb- proof and shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the action of these tremen- dous engines alone would be sufficient to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were con- sumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not until September that they were com- pleted. A partial cannonade took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great at- tack, which was to decide the fate of the be- leaguered fortress, was commenced on the 18th of September. On that day, the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within close range ; while the ten floating batteries were moored with strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the laud 170 guns were prepared to open fii-e simultaneously with the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in at the first prac- ticable breach. . . . The grand attack was com- menced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400 pieces of artillery. The great floating bat- teries, securely anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant storm, from 143 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to the cannonade both from sea and land ; and of these he made the most judicious use. Disre- garding the attack from every other quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the floating batteries in front of him ; for unless these were silenced, their force would prove irresisti- ble. But for a long time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless, the artillery of the gar- rison was still unceasingly directed against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of red- hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it was observed that the combus- tion caused by these missiles, which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire, and that all the efEorts of the crews were required to subdue the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent; and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. . . . Eight of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night; ;ind the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with annihilation. . . . The loss of the enemy was computed at 2,000 ; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and Spanish fleets re- mained in the Straits, expecting the appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe ; and relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal, they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior array which the enetny presented, he was prepared to risk an engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the com- bined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his stores and reinforcements without op- position. Having performed this duty, he set sail for England ; nor did the Spanisli Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line, ven- ture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had been pressed by the whole force of the allied mon- archies. After this event, the war Itself was virtually at an end." — W. Massey, Hist, of Eng., Reign of Oem-(je III. , cli. 37 («. 3). Also ik : Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), Hist, of Eng., 1713-1783, ch. 63-66 (». 7).— J. Drink- water, Hist, of the Siege of 0-ibraltar. A. D. 1780-1783. — Second war with Hyder AH, or Second Mysore War. See India; A. D. 1780-1783. A. D. 1781-1783.— War with Holland. See Netherlands (Holland) : A. D. 1746-1787. A. D. 1782. — Legislative independence con- ceded to Ireland. See Ireland: A. D. 1778- 1794. A. D. 1782-1783.— Fall of Lord North.— The second Rockingham Ministry. — Fox, Shel- burne, and the American peace negotiations. — The Shelburne Ministry. — Coalition of Fox and North. — "There comes a point when even tlie most servile majority of an unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November, 1781. ' O God, it is all overl' cried Lord North, wringing his hands, when he heard of it. . . . On February 7, a vote of censure, moved by Pox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a resolution and carried by a major- ity of nineteen [see United States op Am. : A. D. 1782 (February— jVL\y)]. Still theKing would not give his consent to Lord North's res- ignation. Rather than commit himself to the op- position, he seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to Hanover. . . . Indeed, if it had not been for his lai'ge family, and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of which he was no longer master. By the SOth [of March], however, even 966 ENGLAND, 1782-1783. Fall of Lord North. ENGLAND, 1782-1783. George IIL saw that the game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him with the characteristic words : ' Re- member, my Lord, it is you who desert me, not I who desert you.' . . . Even when the long-de- ferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still flattered himself that he might get together a jMinlstry from among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would be able to restore peace without granting independence, and Shelburue was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in this scheme. . . . Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox, and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of permanent success lay in be- coming the successor, not the supplanter, of Rockingham. . . . His game was to wait. He respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. . . . Before Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon American inde- pendence, if the Ministers recommended it ; and on the i27th of jMarch the triumph of the Opposi- tion was completed by the formation of a Minis- try, mainly representative of the old Whig fami- lies, pledged to a policy of economical reform, and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Ad- miralty, Lord Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as Chancellor. . . . The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Con- way, and Cavendish tried to hold the balance be- tween them, and Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. . . . Few Administrations have done 30 much in a short time as did the Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence, and it so happened that the, lion's share of the work fell to Pox. Upon his appointment to of- fice his friends noticed a change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is said never to have touched a card during either of his three short terms of office. . . . By the di- vision of work among the two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those re- lating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American colonies by the Crown of its own ac- cord, or should be reserved in order to form part of the general treat)' of peace. According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and Eng- land would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme, but unfortunately, di- rectly America became independent, she ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's manage- ment, and the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his control into the hands of Fox. . . . Shelburne at once threw his whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great ef- fect that to give independence at once was to throw away the trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be required to make, the only one which she was prepared to make ; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the isolation of France failed, and a double negotia- tion for peace was set on foot. Shelburue and Franklin took charge of the treaty with America [see United States of Am. : A. D. 1783 (Sep- tember)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of friends ; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then because he would not em- bitter Rockingham's last moments upon earth. " This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of July Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord Shelburne. " Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parlia- ment in 1780] into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to smile on Shelburne. He . . . might well look forward to a long and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration lasted not quite seven months. " It was weakened by distrust and dis- satisfaction among its members, and overturned iu February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Minis- try formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became the Sec- retaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the Paymastership, the followers of Lord North . . . were rewarded with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of polit- ical parties have been received by historians and posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the coalition of 1783. . . . There is no evi- dence to show that at the time it struck politicians iu general as being specially heinous." — H. O. Wakeman, Life of Charles Janied Fox, ch. 3—5. 967 ENGLAND, 1782-1783. The Younger Pitt. ENGLAND, 1783-1787. Also in: Lord J. Eussell, Life of Fox, ch. 16- 17 (v. 1).— W. P. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, pp. 307-317.— Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of Wil- liam, Earl of Shelburne, i\ 3, c!i. 3-6. A. D. 1783. — The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of America signed at Paris. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1783 (Septe.mbek). A. D. 1783-1787. — Fall of the Coalition. — Ascendancy of the younger Pitt. — His extra- ordinary grasp of power. — His attempted measures of reform. — "Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Govern- ment of India. That day month the Government had ceased to exist. Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter. . . . It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against an unpopular Coalition which had resisted eco- nomical reform, demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of India, — pat- ronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever, dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the King schemed, and controversy raged. . . . When tlie Bill arrived at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King had seen Temple, and empowered him to com- municate to all whom it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or strawberry leaves ; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of usefulness ; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convic- tions were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. . . . The result was overwhelm- ing. The triumphant Coalition was paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At first he was not believed. ' The King would not dare do it,' exclaimed Fox. But the under Sec- retary charged with the message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals were de- livered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government, unhonoured and unwept. ' England,' once said Mr. Disraeli, ' does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay ; the moment had come, and the man. Within 13 hours of the King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First Lordship of the Treas- ury and the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid univer- sal derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of 17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the difficulties were tremendous. . . . The composition of the Government was . . . the least of Pitt's embar- rassments. The majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than 40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the meeting of Parliament, to pre- pare and to obtain the approval of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the place of Burke's. The Coalition JNIinisters were only dismissed on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The nar- rative of the next three months is stirring to read, but would require too much detail for our limits. . . . On the day of the meeting of Par- liament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched divi- sions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His government seemed still-born. His col- leagues were dismayed. The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he needed no support. He had inherited from his father that confidence which made Chatham once say, ' I am sure that I can save this country, and that nobody else can ' ; which made himself say later, ' I place much dependence on my new colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for he felt that the country required time. . . . The Clerkship of the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a year, fell va- cant the very day that Parliament met. It was universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and so acquire an independence, which woukl enable him to devote his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not £300 a year ; bis position was to the last degree pre- carious. . . . Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He gave the place to Barre. ... To a nation Inured to jobs this came as a revelation. . . . Above and beyond all was the fact that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the great leaders allied against him. ... In face of so resolute a resistance, the assail- ants began to melt away. Their divisions, though they always showed a superiority to the Government, betrayed notable diminution. . . . On the 35th of March Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by the unex- plained theft of the Great Seal. When the elec- tions were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs — of Fox's follow- ers who had earned that nickname by losing their seats — was 160. . . . The King and Pitt were supported on the tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions." — Lord Rosebery, Pitt, ch. 3.^" Three subjects then needed the attention of a great statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were, our economical and financial legisla- tion, the imperfection of our parliamentary rep- resentation, and the unhappy condition of Ire- land. Pitt dealt with all three. ... He brought in a series of resolutions consolidating our cus- toms laws, of which the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number. They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament which they restrained or completed was much greater. He attempted, and success- fully, to apply the principles of Free Trade, the principles wliich he was the first of English statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the ac- tual commerce of the country. . . . Tlie financial reputation of Pitt has greatly suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the worst part of it. The dread of national ruin 968 ENGLAND, 1783-1787. The French Revolittio7i. ENGLAND, 1793-1796. from the augmentation of the national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. . . . Mr. Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a certain fixed sura to the payment of the debt, which was in itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be so paid. . . . He proposed to borrow the money to pay off the debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. . . . The exposure of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so, such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavour- ably upon Mr. Pitt's deserved fame. . . . The subject of parliamentary reform is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public most connected his name, and is also that with which we are now least apt to connect it. . . . He pro- posed the abolition of the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey accom- plished it. . . . If the strong counteracting in- fluence of the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary representation. . . . The state of Ireland was a more pressing difficulty than our financial confusion, our eco- nomical errors, or our parliamentary corruption. . . . He proposed at once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments, and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish Parlia- ment, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in England. ... Of these great re- forms he was only permitted to carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it continued to be for very many years ; but the time became unfavourable for all forward- looking statesmanship." — W. Bagehot, Biograph- ical Studies: William Pitt. Also in: Earl Stanhope, Life of William Pitt, ch. 4-9 {v. 1).— G. Tomline, Ufe of William Pitt, ch. 8-9 (v. 1-2).— Lord Rosebery, Pitt, ch. 3^. A. D. 1788 (February). — Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings. See India: A. D.1785- 1795. A. D. 1788-1789. — The King's second de- rangement. — The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration than the first. "He was able ... to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parlia- ment by conunission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased : he was wholly de- prived of reason, and placed under restraint ; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a fur- ther prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November. . . . According to long estab- lished law. Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provi- sion, was now superior to the law ; and Parlia- ment accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's ill- ness had given rise. " By Mr. Fox it was main- tained that ' ' the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty dur- ing the king's incapacity as if the king were actually dead ; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence the exercise of his right. . . . Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, main tained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provi- sion." The discussion to which these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the situa- tion of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed. — T. E. Jlay, Const. Hist, of Eng., V. 1, i-h. 3. A. D. 1789-1792. — War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War). See India: A. D. 1785- 1793. A. D. 1793. — The Coalition against Revolu- tionary France. — Unsuccessful siege of Dun- kirk. See France: A. D. 1793 (March — Sep- te.mber), and (July — December), A. D. 1793-1796. — Popular feeling tovyards the French Revolution. — Small number of the English Jacobins. — Pitt forced into war. — Tory panic and reign of terror. — -Violence of government measures. — ' ' That the war [of Rev- olutionary France] with Germany would widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle iu which the peoples would rise against their op- pressors, and the freedom which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French revolu- tionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in this struggle England would join them. It was from England that they had drawn those principles of political and social liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into practice. It was to England that they looked above all for approbation and sympathy. ... To the revolu- tionists at Paris the attitude of England remained imintelligible and Irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found but a cold neu- trality. . . . But that this attitude was that of the English people as a whole was incredible to the French enthusiasts. . . . Their first work therefore they held to be the bringing about a revolution in England. . . . They strove, through a number of associations which had formed them- selves under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy, Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which denounced this correspondence as seditious. . . . Burke was still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was forgotten in their in- tensity of feeling to spread alarm throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them ; ' diffuse terror 1 ' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror in France. ... In November the Convention decreed that France offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would strive for freedom. . . . In the teeth of treaties signed only two years be- fore, and of the stipulation made by England when it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to enforce by arms the open- ing of the Scheldt [see France: A. D. 1792-1793 (December — February)]. To do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every day harder upon Pitt. . . . But even while withdrawing our Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung 969 ENGLAND, 1793-1796. English Jacobins, ENGLAND, 1797. stubbornly to a policy of peace. . . . No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion, and refused to bow to the gath- ering cry for war. . . . But desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in vain. . . . Both sides ceased from diplomatic communi- cations, and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of "War. From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his immoveable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation, still kept him at the head of affairs ; but he could do little save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic over- sea. . . . The partisans of Republicanism were in reality but a few haudfuls of men. . . . But in the mass of Englishmen the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed prop- erty and the constitution to be in peril, and for- sook Pox when he still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution." — J. R. Green, Jlist. of the Eng. People, bk. 9, ch. 4 (». 4). — "Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments mut with no response, but with general reproba- tion, and caused even his friends to shrink from liis side. Of the so-called Jacobin Societies, .the Society for Constitutional Information numbered only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society was of a more sinister character ; but its numbers were computed oulj^ at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal masses of the people. ... It is sad to say it, but when Pitt had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil. To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he com- menced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist, characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous informers was called into activity by the govern- ment. . . . There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended ; and the lib- erties of all men were thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. ... In Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England." — Goldwin Smith, Tlwee Engliih Statesmen, pp. 339- 247. — " The gaols were filled with political delin- quents, and no man who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason. . . . But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now, as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass." The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy, who organized the Corresponding Society, and Home Tooke. But no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved against them by credita- ble witnesses, and both were acquitted. ' ' The public joy was very general at these acquittals. . . . The war lost its popularity ; bread grew scarce ; commerce was crippled ; . . . the easy success that had been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took advan- tage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the constitution which j'et covered them. He brought forward the Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill. Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate, and rendered disobedience to his com- mand a felony." — G. W. Cooke, Sist. of Party, r. 3, ch. 17. Also in : J. Adolphus, Hist, of Eng. : Reign of George III. ch. 81-89a,/jfZ9.5((\5-6).— J. Gifford, mst. of the Political Life of Win. Pitt, ch. 33-24, and 38-29 (». 3-4).— W. Massey, Sist. of Eng. : Reign of George III.,ch. 82-36 (c. 3-4).— E. Smith, The Story of the English Jacobins. — A. Bisset, Short Hist, of the Eng. Parliament, ch. 8. A. D. 1794. — Campaigns of the Coalition against France. — French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine. — Conquest of Corsica. — Naval victory of Lord Howe. See France: A. D. 1794 (M.\rch— July), A. D. 1794. — Angry relations with the United States.— The Jay Treaty. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1794-1795. A. D. 1794-1795. — Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands. — French conquest of Holland. — Establishment of the Batavian Re- public. — Crumbling of the European Coalition. See France: A. O. 1794-179.5 (October— May). A. D. 1795. — Disastrous expedition to Qui- beron Bay. See Fr.\nce: A. D. 1794-1796. A. D. 1795. — Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch. See France: A. D. 1793 (.June — December). A. D. 1796 (September). — Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica. See France; A. D. 1796 (September). A. D. 1796 (October). — Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory. See France: A. D. 1796 (October). A. D. 1796-1798. — Attempted French inva- sions of Ireland. — Irish Insurrection. See Ire- land: A. D. 1793-1798. A. D. 1797. — Monetary panic and suspen- sion of specie payments. — Defeat of the first Reform movement. — Mutiny of the Fleet. — Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Cam- perdown. — "The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded during the 18th cen- tury as at the beginning of the year 1797. The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed every hope of an honourable termina- tion to the war, while of all her original allies, Austria alone remained ; the national burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per- cents had fallen to fifty-one ; while party spirit raged with uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council appeared (Feb. 26) for the suspension of all cash payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes a legal-tender; and it was not till 970 ENGLAND, 1797. Victories at Sea. ENGLAND, 1800. 1819, after the conclusion of peace, that the re- currence to metallic currency took place. The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew their cherished project of parliamen- tary reform ; and on 26th May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly re- markable for containing the outlines of that sub- sequently earned into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and the requisite supplies were voted. . . . Unknown to the government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in the navy. The exciting causes were principally the low rate of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles II.), the unequal distri- bution of prize-money, and undue severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power of the insurgents ; but they maintained perfect order, and memorialised the Admiralty and the Com- mons on their grievances: their demands being examined by government, and found to be rea- sonable, were granted ; and on the 7th of May the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore, which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had been cruising off the Texel under Lord Dun- can. The mutineers appointed a seaman named Parker to the command ; and, blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused dreadful consternation in London ; but the firmness of the King remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication with the mutineers under pain of deatli. Sheerness and Tilbury Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames ; and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly arraj^ed against them, became gradually sensible that their enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was extended to the multitude. . . . Notwith- standing all these dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its enemies than dur- ing this eventful year. On the 14th of February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12 frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St. Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6 frigates. By the old manoeuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral, while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of the Britisli line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and Collingwood, — the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns, engaged at once two of the enemy's gigan- tic vessels, the Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112; while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length car- ried the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's sword on his own quarter- deck. The Santissima Trinidad — an enormous four-decker — though her colours were twice struck, escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador, with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British ; and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which was shortly after in- sulted by a bombardment from the gallant Nel- son. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at sea, from the evi- dent superiority of skill and seamanship which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St. Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval campaign ; but later in the season a second attempt to reach Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11 frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried courage and experience. The British block- ading fleet, under Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the battle was fought (Oct. 16) off Camperdown, about nine miles from the shore of Holland. The manoeu- vres of the British Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his own shores ; and this having been accomplished, the action com- menced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost fury for more than tliree hours. The Dutch sailors fought with the most admi- rable skill and courage, and proved themselves worthy descendants of VanTromp and De Ruy ter ; but the prowess of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line, including the flagship, two 56- gun ships, and 2 frigates, struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered. The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040 English, and 1,160 Dutch. . . . The only remaining operations of the year were the capture of Trinidad in Febru- ary, by a force which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico ; and an abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400 French." — Epitome of Alison's Uist. of Europe, sect. 190-196 {eh. 22, v. 5— of complete work). Also in: J. Adolphus, Hist, of Eng.: Reign of George III., ch. 100-103 («. 6).— R. Southey, Life of Nelson, ch. 4. — E. J. De La Gravifere, Sketches of the Last Naval War, v. 1, pt. 2. — Capt. A. T. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Bev. and Empire, ch. 8 and 11 {v. 1). A. D. 1798 (August). — Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile. See Fuance: A. D. 1798 (May — August). A. D. 1798. — Second Coalition against Revo- lutionary France. See Fkance: A. D. 1798- 1799 (August — April). A. D. 1799 (April). — Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War). See Indlv : A. D. 1798-1805. A. D. 1799 (August — October). — Expedition against Holland. — Seizure of the Dutch fleet. — Ignominious ending of the enterprise. — Capitulation ofthe Duke of York. See France: A. D. 1799 (April — September), and (Septem- ber — October), A. D. 1800. — Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain. — Creation of the " United Kingdom." See Ireland: A. D. 1798-1800. 971 ENGLAKD, 1801. PiWs last Admiii istration. ENGLAND, 1801-1806. A. D. 1801.— The first Factory Act. See Factory Legislation. A. D. 1801-1802. — Import of the Treaty of Luneville. — Bonaparte's preparations for con- flict with Great Britain alone. — Retirement of Pitt. — The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at Copenhagen. — Ex- pulsion of the French from Egypt. — The Peace of Amiens. SccFrakce: A. D. 1801-1802, A. D. 1801-1806. — Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King. — His resigna- tion. — The Addington Ministry. — The Peace of Amiens. — War resumed. — Pitt at the helm again.— His death.— The Ministry of " All the Talents." — " The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party discussion, which quickly became only second to that of parliamentary re- form. In transplanting the parliament of Col- lege Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the questions which were there debated ; and, of these, none had been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their complaints were just. In Ms private negotiations with the Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation should be the sequel to the union. In his place In parliament he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not a min- ister who governed by petty stratagems, by am- biguous professions, and by skilful shuffles : he was at least an honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the constitution. It had been better for the character of George III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to fulfil, before he had ob- tained the advantage to gain which that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once Interposed, and when Dundas per- sisted in his attempt to overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated the conference, saying, ' Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy religious obligations. ' Pitt immediately tendered his resignation. . . . All that was bril- liant in Toryism passed from the cabinet with the late minister. When Pitt and Canning were withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea — the certain ruin which must follow the first particle of innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of the question. These were more strenuous for eman- cipation than Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons, was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he suc- ceeded, with the assistance of the late premier, In filling up the offices at his disposal. . . . The peace of Amiens was the great work of this feeble administration [see France: A. D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the boast- ings of the Tories. ' Unless the monarchy of France be restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, ' the monarchy of England is lost for- ever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded, yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade was stayed. England had sur- rendered her conquests, France retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some de- gree restored ; England, alone, remained bur- dened with the enduring consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was ap- proved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington administration. But he could not control his adherents. ... As the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency of the administration became gen- erally acknowledged : with Pitt sometimes chid- ing, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only refraining from violent op- position from a knowledge that if Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a man destitute of commanding talents. When to these parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened inva- sion, Addington's embarrassments became inex- tricable. He had performed the business which Pitt had assigned him ; he had made an experi- mental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with the Roman Catholics. The object of his ap- pointment he had unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor manifest an inten- tion of returning to office, than the ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume his station as a matter of course. During his temporary re- tirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his supporters. The Grenville party and the AVhigs had gradually approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new arrange- ments unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm — or obstinate. ... In the following year, Addington himself, now created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the subordinate appointment of president of the council. The conflagration had again spread through Europe. . . . Pitt had the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the produce of such im- mense expense and the object of such hope, shat- tered in one campaign. At home, Lord Mel- ville, his most faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth and sev- eral others seceded from the cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away the year 1805. On the" 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. . . . The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration. The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions innumerable. Canning now recognised no po- litical leader, but retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt. Castle- reagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, orBarham, although sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to defend, would have made 972 ENGLAND, 1801-1806. Abolition of the Slave Tj'ade. ENGLAND. 1806-1813. a hopeless figure without him in face of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded. The administration, which was ironically desig- nated by its opponents as ' All the Talents, ' suc- ceeded. Lord Grenville was first lord of the treas- ury. Fox chose the office of secretary for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr. Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of the iiavy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who, although now only in his 36th year, had already acquired considerable distinc- tion as an eloquent Whig speaker, was advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty." — G. W. Cooke, Hist, of Party, v. 3, ch. 17-18. Also in : Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), Life of Pitt, ch. 39-44 (». 3^).— A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, ch. 6-8. — Earl Russell, Life and Times of Charles James Fox, ch. 58-69 <». 3). — G. Pellew, Life and Corr. of Henry Ad- dington, \st Viscmint Sidmouth, ch. 10-36 (v. 1-3). A. D. l802 (October).— Protest against Bo- naparte's interference in Svsritzerland. — His extraordinary reply. See Fkance: A. D. 1801- 1808. A. D. 1802-1803. — Bonaparte's complaints and demands. — The Peltier trial. — The First Consul's rage. — Declaration of war. — Napo- leon's seizure of Hanover. — Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy, Switz- erland and the Netherlands. See France: A. D. 1803-1803. A. D. 1804-1809. — Difficulties with the United States. — Questions of neutral rights. — Right of Search and Impressment. — The American Embargo. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808. A. D. 1805 (January— April).— Third Coali- tion against France. See France: A. D. 1805 (.J.\NUARY — April). A. D. 1805. — Napoleon's threatened inva- sion. — Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet. — His victory and death at Trafalgar. — The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz. See France: A. D. 1805 (March — December). A. D. 1806. — Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch. See South Africa: A. D. 1486-1806. A. D. 1806. — Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon. — War with Prussia. See Ger- many: A. D. 1806 (.January— August). A. D. 1806. — Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples. — The Battle of Maida. See France : A. D. 1805-1806 (Decem- ber — September). A. D. 1806.— Death of Pitt.— Peace nego- tiations with Napoleon. See France: A. D. 1806 (.January- — October). A. D. 1806-1807.— Expedition against Bue- nos Ay res. See Argentine Republic: A. D. 1806-1830. A. D. 1806-1810. — Commercial warfare with Napoleon. — Orders in Council. — Berlin and Milan Decrees. See France : A. D. 1806-1810. A. D. 1806-1812.— The ministry of "All the Talents."— Abolition of the Slave Trade.— The Portland and the Perceval ministries. — Confirmed insanity of George III. — Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales. — As- sassination of Mr. Perceval. — The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade. Fox was now des- tined at the close of his career to be disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly realized the insincerity of his hero. . . . The second great object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his death ; — this was the aboli- tion of the slave-trade. For more than thirty years the question had been before the country, and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Fox. Pitt was quite at one with them on this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject. The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary pun- ishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this measure — the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship — was wholly inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in 1811 that its final extinction was secured. "The remaining acts of the Ministry were blunders. . . . Their finan- cial system was a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they in- sisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government. . . . The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it, and so the Ministry agreed to drop the ques- tion under protest. George Insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was refused he dismissed them. . . . This then was the final triumph of George III. He had success- fully dismissed this Ministry ; he had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely necessary in order to curb the royal influence. . . . The Duke of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents were never very great, and they were weakened by age and disease. "The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a dexterous de- bater and a patriotic statesman. This Govern- ment, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign Minis- ter. His advanced views, however, continually brought hira into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels inevita- bly arose between the two, and there was no real Prime Minister to hold them strongly under control. ... At last the ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual resigna- tion on the ground that neither could serve with the other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing the Ministry any longer. The leadership now devolved on 973 ENGLAND. 1806-1813. The Regency. The Walcheren Piasco. ENGLAND, 1809. Perceval, 'n-ho found liimself in an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Welles- ley. Neither Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join Mm. The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in igno- miny. The campaign in the Peninsula was re- garded as a chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was con- tinually thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as long as he remained at the Foreign Oflace, he supported the Peninsu- lar War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a some- what more modified form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in oflice. Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to re- sign, and was succeeded by Castlereagh, Febru- ary, 1812. In May Perceval was assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at once fell to pieces." — B.C. Skottowe, Our Han- overian Kings, bk. 10, ch. 3. Also in: F. H. Hill, Oeorge Canning, ch. 13- 17. — S. Walpole, Life of Spencer Perceval, v. 2. — R. I. and S. Wilberforce, Life of William Wilber- force, ch. 20 (c. 3). A. D. 1807.— Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade. See Slavery, Negro; A. D. 1792-1807. A. D. 1807 (February— September).— Opera- tions in support of the Russians against the Turks and French. — Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure. — Dis- astrous expedition to Egypt. See Turks: A. D. 1806-1807. A. D. 1807 (June— July).— Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia. See Germany: A. D. 1807 (June — July). A. D. 1807 (August— November).— Bombard- ment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Dan- ish fleet. — War vyith Russia and Denmark. See Scandinavian States: A. D. 1807-1810. A. D. 1807 (October— November).— Submis- sion of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice. — Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil. See Portugal: A. D. 1807. A. D. 1808 (May).— Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden. — Expedition of Sir John Moore. See ScANiftNAViAN States: A. D. 1807-1810. A. D. 1808 (July).— Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new Napo- leonic monarchy. — Opening of the Peninsular War. See Spain : A. D. 1808 (May— Septejiber). A. D. 1808. — Expulsion of English forces from Capri. See Italy (Southern) : A. D. 1808- 1809. A. D. 1808-1809.— Wellington's first cam- paign in the Peninsula. — Convention of Cintra. — Evacuation of Portugal by the French.— Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat. — His death at Corunna. See Spain: A. D. 1808-1809 (August— January). A. D. 1809 (February — July).— 'Wellington sent to the Peninsula. — The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera. Sue Spain: A. D. 1809 (Feeru.ary— July). A. D. 1809 (July— December).— The Wal- cheren Expedition. — " Three times before, dur- ing the war, it had occurred to one or another, connected with the government, that it would be a good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the French ships in the river, and get possession of their arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt had considered imprac- ticable. Lord Castlereagh, with the rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would have objected to the en- terprise. Though the scene of action was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he con- sulted no physician. Having himself neither naval, military, nor medical knowledge, he as- sumed the responsibility — except such as the King and the Duke of York chose to share. . . . It was May, 1809, before any stir was apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to in- fer that an expedition for the Scheldt was in con- templation ; but so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr. Canning signified that he could not share in the responsibility of an enter- prise which must so involve his own office. . . . The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39 ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due pro- portion of small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused. . . . The naval com- mander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many who had more experience were unem- ployed. The military command was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet had been) to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. . . . The fatal mis- take was made of not defining the respective au- thorities of the two commanders; aud both being inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first, and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the autumn, an epigram of un- known origin was in every body's mouth, all over England: ' Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn. Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan ; Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em. Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.' The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast of Holland the next day. The first dis- covery was that there were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The next was that no plan had been formed about how to pro- ceed. The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp, 45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for defence ; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first. They set about it so slowly that a fort- night was consumed in preparations. In two 974 ENGLAND, 1809. Distress and Disorders. ENGLAND, 1812-1813. (lays more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken. After this. Lord Chatham paused to con- sider what lie should do next ; and it was the 21st before he began to propose to go on to Antwerp. Tlien came the next discovery, that, by this time two intermediate places had been so strengthened tliat there must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not another blow was struck ; not another league was trav- ersed by this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery .of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few days, just when it be- came necessary to reduce the rations, because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August, Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not advisable to pursue further operations. ' But, if they could not pro- ceed, neitlier could they remain where they were. The enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and 31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river, that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up, and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September, most of the ships were at home again ; and Lord Chatliam appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in the fever, and he brouglit home as many as he could. Sir Eyre Coote, whom ho left in com- mand, was dismayed to see all the rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a daj'. Though the men had been working in tlie swamps, up to the waist in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames water to drink would stop the sickness ; and a supply of 500 tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October, a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar, were sent over to mend the roofs ; but they immediately dropped into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the beginning been insufficient for their need. At last, government desired the cliief officers of the army Medical Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise nature of the fever, and what could be done. The Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon each other. Government appointed it to the Pliysician-General, Sir Lucas Pepys ; but he refused to go. Both officers were dismissed, and the medical department of the army was reorganized and greatly improved. The deatlis were at this time from 200 to 300 a week. AVhen Walcheren was evacuated, on the 23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months before were dead or missing ; and of those who returned, 35,000 were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace." — H. Martineau, fij«i. of Eruj.. 1800-1815, bk. 2, ch. 2. Also in : C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng. , v. 7, ch. 29. A. D. 1809 (August — December). — Difficul- ties of Wellington's campaign in the Penin- sula. — His retreat into Portugal. See Spaik: A. D. 1809 (August— December). A. D. 1810. — Capture of the Mauritius. See India: A. D. 180.5-1816. A. D. 1810-1812.— The War in the Penin- sula. — Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras. — French recoil from them. — English advance into Spain. See Spain: A. D. 1809-1810 (Oc- tober — September), and 1810-1812. A. D. i8ii. — Capture of Java from the Dutch. See India: A. D. 180.5-1816. A. D. 1811-1812. — Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden. — Reopening of their ports to British com- merce. See Francj=: A. D. 1810-1813. A. D. 1812 (January). — Building of the first passenger Steam-boat. See Steam Naviga- tion: The Beginnings. A. D. i8i2(June — August). — The Peninsular War. — Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid. See Spain: A. D. 1813 (June — August). A. D. 1812-1813. — The Liverpool Ministry. — Business depression and bad harvests. — Distress and rioting. — The Luddites. — " Again there was mucli negotiation, and an attempt to introduce Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they could not serve with Castlereagh ; they were then asked to form a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged. Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the Household ; and as an American war was threat- ening, and the ministrj^ had already given up their Orders in Council (one of the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office. Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success of AVellington as yet imcertain, England had drifted into war with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the Govern- ment clung to the execution of their retaliatory measures against France, regardless of the prac- tical injury they were inflicting upon all neutrals. . . . The same motive of class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole ad- ministration of home affairs. There was an in- capacity to look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the inevitable con- sequence of the circumstances in which England was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable in so far as it created those cir- cumstances. At the same time it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which the misery was ignored and the occasional success of individual merchants and contractors regarded 975 ENGLAND, 1812-1813. Agitation and Riot. ENGLAND, 1816-1820. as evidences of national prosperity. ... A plen- tiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many continental ports, did much to revive both trade and manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the manufacturing interest also ; apparently, for the instant, the very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. . . . Before the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week. The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men urged upon Par- liament that they were starving ; but there was another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no means superseded hand- work. Li thou- sands of hamlets and cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good nor so rapid as work done by machinery ; even at the be§t of times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not unnaturally, with- out work and without food, these hand workers were very ready to believe that it was the ma- chinery which caused their ruin, and so in fact it was ; the change, though on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery. The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham, calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot lad who some 30 years before had broken stocking-frames), gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking. The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels hold- ing every approach, silence on all sides, the vil- lage inhabitants cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of smashing and buroing, and the disappearance of the crowd as rapidly as it had arrived — such were the incidents of the night riots." — J. F. Bright, Hist, of Eng., period 3, pp. 1325-1832. Also m: C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng., V. 7, ch. 30. — Pictorial Hist, of Eng., v. 8, ch. 4 (Beign. of George III., v. 4). A. D. 1812-1815.— War with the United States. See United States op Am. • A. D. 1804-1809; 1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (J anu- akt). A. D. 1813 (June). — Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon. See GEKM.VNY: A. D. 1813 (.AIay— Aut^rsT). A. D. 1813-1814. — Wellington's victorious and final campaigns in the Peninsular War. See Spain: A. D. 1812-1814. A. D. 1813-1816.— War with the Ghorkas of Nepal. See India: A. D. 1805-1816. A. D. 1814. — The allies in France and in possession of Paris. — Fall of Napoleon. See France: A. D. 1814 (Januaky — 3Iarch), and (March — April). A. D. 1814 (May— June).— Treaty of Paris.— Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France and the Cape of Good Hope. See France: A. D. 1814 (Apkil — June). A. D. 1814 (December).- The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1814 (December). A. D. 1814-1815.— The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe. See ViEXN.\, The Congress of. A. D. 1815 (March).— The Corn Law. See Tariff Legislation (England); A. D. 1815- 1838. A. D. 1815 (June). — The Waterloo cam- paign. — Defeat and final Overthrow of Na- poleon. See France: A. D. 1815 (.June). A. D. 1815 (July— August). — Surrender of Napoleon. — His confinement on the Island of St. Helena. See France: A. D. 1815 (June — August). A. D. i8i5(July— November).— Wellington's army in Paris. — The Second Treaty. See Fr.ance: a. D. 1815 (July— No\t:mber). A. D. 181S (September).— The Holy Alliance. See Holy Alli.ance. A. D. 1816-1820.— Agitation for Parliamen- tary Reform. — Hampden Clubs. — Spencean philanthropists. — Trials of William Hone. — The Spa-fields meeting and riot. — March of the Blanketeers. — Massacre of Peterloo. — The Six Acts. — Death of George III.— Accession of George IV. — "From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for the most part, a name of terror to the Government. ... It passed away from the patronage of a few aristo- cratic lovers of popularity, to be advocated by writers of ' two-penny trash,' and to be discussed aud organized by ' Hampden Clubs ' of hunger- ing philanthropists aud unemployed ' weaver- boys.' Samuel Bamford, who thought it no dis- grace to call himself 'a Radical'. . . says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority ; they were read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manu- facturing disti-icts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett ad- vocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of politicians was called into action : ' The Sunday-schools of the preceding thirty years had produced many working men of suflicient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform ; some also were found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their assem- blages ; and by such various means, anxious lis- teners at first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the cottages of quiet nooks and din- gles to the weekly readings and discussions of the Hampden Clubs.'. . . In a Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, pre- sented on the 19th of February, 1817, the Hamp- den Clubs are described as ' associated profess- edly for the purpose of Parliamentary Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage and annual parliaments ' ; but that ' in far the greater number of them . . . nothing short of a Revolution is the object expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform. . . . Bam- ford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of delegates to be assembled in 976 ENGLAND, 1816-1830. The Blanketeers and Peterloo. ENGLAND, 1816-1820. London. . . . The Middleton delegate was in- troduced, amidst the reeking tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a society called the ' Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school- master in Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the property of the State, which State should divide all the pro- duce for the support of the people. . . . The Committee of the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with 'machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dan- gerous men had established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, ter- minated in a senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named Watson. The mob plun- dered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower ; but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and dangerous position than that In which every political writer was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be impris- oned upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned. The power of ex-offlcio information had been ex- tended so as to compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during which three years forty such informations were laid, only one per- son was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-offlcio informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default, to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were committed to prison during this year. . . . The entire course of these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one solitary instance of success — Wil- liam Cobbett ran away. On the 28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication of his ' Register ' for four mouths. On the 12th of May earl Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was proceeded against for pub- lishing some blasphemous parody; but he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice havmg been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl Grey al- luded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's famous parody, ' Praise Lepaux ' ; and he asked whether the authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law ? This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and seditious parodies, was effec- tually worked out by him in the solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest j'ears, with a collection of odd and curious books. Prom these he had gathered an abun- dance of knowledge that was destined to perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-Gen- eral, to whom the sword and buckler of his pre- cedents would be wholly useless, and to change 977 the determination of the boldest judge in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into tlie prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects upon the temper of the country than any public proceed- ings of that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause, we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel itself, and the use of the law, in our own day, — an improvement which leaves what is dan- gerous in the press to be corrected by the reme- dial power of the press itself ; and which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest corrective of the evils that are in- cident even to the best gift of heaven, — that of knowledge." — C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng., V. 8, ch. 5.— In 1817 "there was widespread dis- tress. There were riots in the counties of Eng- land arising out of the distress. There were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were appointed by both Houses of the Legisla- ture to inquire into the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and con- sternation through various circles in London. The march of the Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large number of the working-men in Slanchester conceived the idea of walking to London to lay an account of their distress before the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple, was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool, and justice would be done to them and their claims. The Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very different way, with the Blanket- eers. If the poor men had been marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in official circles. The Government, availing itself of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in it. . . . The ' Massacre of Peter- loo,' as it is not inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meet- ing was called to petition for Parliamentary re- form. It should be remembered that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great cities were without any manner of representation ENGLAND, 1816-1820. TriaC of Queen Caroline, ENGLAND, 1820-1837 in Parliament. It was a vast meeting — some 80,000 men and women are stated to have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put down or disperse meetings which they consid- ered objectionable, and to suppress any manner of publication wliich they chose to call seditious. But among tliem were some Bills to prevent training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms. These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the work- ing-classes of England were preparing a revolu- tion. . . . During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of Commons were bring- ing on motion after motion for Parliamentary re- form, just as Grattan and his friends were bring- ing forward motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody. . . . The motion had only two supporters — Burdett himself, and his colleague. Lord Coch- rane. . . . The forms of the House require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party. ... On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to an end. The life of the King closed in darlvness of eyes and mind. Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals, wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long, white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words of Milton — the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon — irrecoverably dark ' — now, in a happier mood, announcing him- self to be in the companionship of angels. George, the Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne ; and George TV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but their hopes had begun to be chilled of late." — J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, ell. 3. Also in ; J. Routledge, Chapters in tlie Hist, of Popular Progress, ch. 12-19. — H. Martineau, ilist. of the Thirti/ Tears' Peace, bk. 1, ch. 5-17 (!). 1).— E. Smith, William Cobbett, ch. 21-23 {v. 2). — See, also, Tarifp Legislation (England): A. D. 1815-1838. A. D. i8i8.— Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc. See Fish- eries, North American : A. D. 1814-1818. A. D. 1820.— Accession of King George IV. A. D. 1820-1822. — Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona. — Projects of the Holy Alliance. — English protests. — Canning's pol- icy towards Spain and the Spanish American colonies. See Verona, The Congress op. A. D. 1820-1827.— TheCato Street Conspir- acy. — Trial of Queen Caroline. — Canning in the Foreign Office. — Commercial Crisis of 1825. — Canning as Premier. — His death. — "Riot and social misery had, during the Re- gency, heralded the Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret intel- ligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the Cato Street Conspiracy. . . . George IV., almost as soon as the crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed both. After some time of semi- banishment to Blackheath she had gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the subject of more than one ' delicate investigation ' for the purpose of procuring evidence of infidel- ity against her. She now came to England (Juno 6, 1830), and passed from Dover to London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her conduct. Lord Liver- pool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the lustre gained in her defence — Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor- General. After the failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two things that the Ministers refused — the insertion of her name in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some for- eign court — Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a ' Bill of Pains and Penalties, ' which aimed at her degradation from the throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. ... At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a major- ity of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would have been better for her own peace. But she went in public procession to St. Paul's to re- turn thanks for her victory. And more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her way into Westminster Abbey during the Coro- nation of her husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death, insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the procession till it had cleared the streets. . . . George Can- ning had resigned his office rather than take any part with the Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the ' Bill of Pains and Penalties, ' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of the trial year. 978 ENGLAND, 1820-1837. Disabilities of Dissenters Removed. ENGLAND, 1837-1838. Early in 1823 Lord Sidmouth . . . resigned the Home Office. He was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to acliieve eminence. Canning- about tiie same time was offered the post of Governor-General of India," and accepted it ; but this arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh, who committed sui- cide in August. Canning then became Foreign Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was diametrically opposed to that of Lon- donderry [Castlereagh]. . . . Refusing to inter- fere in Spanish affairs, he yet acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States, which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to reconcile [see Verona, Congress of]. . . . During the years 1834-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once dur- ing the last century and a half. ... A crop of fungus companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the Stock Exchange. . . . Shares were bought and gambled in. The win- ter passed ; but spring shone on glutted markets, depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed so much capital. Then the crashing began — the weak broke first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to lend money upon the security of goods — in fact to begin the pawnbroking busi- ness — the Government met the crisis, allayed the panic, and to some extent restored commer- cial credit. Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April, Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues refusing to take office with him. His administration was brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death. — W. F. Collier, Hist, of Eng., pp. 526-539. Also in : Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, ch. 13-18 {v. 3). — A. G. Stapleton, Oeorye Canning and His Times, ch. 18-31;.— The same. Some OJjUial Gorr. of Oeorge Canning, 3 v. — F. H. Hill, George Canning, ch. 19-33.— Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lyndhurst, ch. 7. A. D. 1824-1826. — The first Burmese War. See IxDLv: A. D. 1833-1833. A. D. 1825-1830. — The beginning of rail- roads. See Ste.ui Loco.motion on Land. A. D. 1827-1828.— Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters. — Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. — "Early in 1837 a private member, of little influence, unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a cen- tury the Dissenters had passively submitted to the anomalous position in which they had been placed by the Legislature [see above : A. D. 1663- 1665; 1673-1673; 1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the Crown, they were aimually ' whitewashed ' for their infringement of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one side and Dis- sent on the other, was maintained unbroken and almost unchallenged till 1837. It was challenged in that year by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London banker ; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the 'hard, unjust, and unnecessary ' law which disabled him from holding ' any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating his conscience. ' Smith took the opportunity Which the annual Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the Liberal mem- bers. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding ' the substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the Catholics were urged 3'ear after year 'with the vehemence of party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and elicited from him the de- claration, that he would bring forward a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, ' if the Prot- estant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so.' A year afterwards — on the 36th of February, 1838 — Lord John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave. " His motion "was carried by 337 votes to 193. The Ministry had sustained a crushing and un- expected reverse. For the moment it was doubt ful whether it could continue in office. It was saved from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and dexterity of Peel. Peel consid- ered that nothing could be more unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of Com- mons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious question. . . . On his advice the Bishops consented to substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the maker of it would ' never exert any power or any influence to injure or subvert the Protestant ' Established Church, was to be taken by the members of every corpo- ration, and, at the pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell, though he dis- liked the declaration, assented to it for the sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school. — S. Walpole, Hist, of Eng. from 1815, ch. 10 (ii. 3). Also m : J. Stoughton, Religion in Enq. from 1800 to 1850, V. 1, ch. 2.— H. S. Skeats, Hist, of the Free Churches of Eng., ch. 9. A. D. 1827-1828. — The administration of Lord Goderich. — Advent of the Wellington Ministry. — "The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly altered. Mr. Huskissou became Colonial Secre- tary, -Mr. Herries Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long endurance. . . . The differences upon financial measures be- tween Mr. Herries . . . and Mr. Huskisson . . . coild not be reconciled by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to the king on the !)lli of January, 1838. His majesty immedi- 97D ENGLAND, 1827-1828. Parliavient before Eefomi. ENGLAND, 1830. ately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which he should he the head. ... It was understood that lord Lynd- hurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of Secretary of State for the Hume Department, saw the impossibility of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He de- sired to strengthen the government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmer- ston, and Mr. Charles Grant, became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb, afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was un- changed." — C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng., v. 8, ch. 13. Also in: Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lynd- hurst, ch. 9. — W. M. Torrens, Life of Viscount Melbourne, v. 1, c7i. 15. A. D. 1827-1829. — Intervention on behalf of Greece. — Battle of Navarino. See Greece: A. D. 1821-1829. A. D. 1828. — Corn Law amendment. — The Sliding Scale. See T.\ripf Legislation (Eng- L.\ND): A. D. 1815-1828. A. D. 1829. — Catholic Emancipation. See Iiiel.\nd: a. D. 1811-1829. A. D. 1830. — The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform. — Death of George IV. — Accession of William IV. — Fall of the Wellington Ministry. — "Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Brit- ain and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members; after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a popula- tion of a little more than eight millions ; in the later days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters, out of a population of twenty -two millions. . . . But the Inadequacy of the repre- sentation will be even more striking if we con- sider the manner in which the electors were broken up into constituencies. The constituencies con- sisted either of counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the Union) were rep- resented by two members, and the counties of Scotland by one member ; and the voters were the forty-shilling freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in Ireland, — all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be Parliamen- tary boroughs is a question of much historic in- terest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail. Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the more impor- tant places were selected ; though other considera- tions, such astlie political opinions of the owners of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some im- portant changes were made. In 1654, he dis- franchised many small boroughs, increased the number of county members, and enfranchised ^Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these re- forms were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very few changes were made. ... In the hundred and fifty years which fol- lowed the Restoration, however, there were changes in the condition of the country, alto- gether beyond the control of either kings or par- liaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed, and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birming- ham, and Leeds were remarkable examples of the latter, — Old Sarum was an example of the former. ... At one time a place of some impor- tance, it declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury) ; and, even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary boroughs. . . . !Many other places might be named [known as Rotten Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs] — such as Gatton in Surrey, and Lud- gershall in Wiltshire — which represented only their owners. In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners onl)', was a very promi- nent feature of the electoral system now under consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine members. Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and several other peers by six each ; and it is stated by one authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to 1780, the members for the county of York — the largest and most influential of the counties — were always elected in Lord Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected instances. JIany others might be cited. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons re- turned a clear majority of the House of Com- mons. In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150 mem- bers ; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307 members — the majority of the House before the Union with Ireland — no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to prove, that 70 members were returned b}' 35 places, in which there were scarcely any electors ; that 90 members were returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50 electors ; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by 26 places, with not more than 200 electors : all these in England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to represen- tation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis. ... In some cases the suffrage was practically household suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely restricted. But they all returned their two members equally ; it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3, 000 or only thi-ee or four. Such being the state of the representa- tion, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller boroughs had a fixed price, and it 980 ENGLAND, 1830. The Question of Reform. ENGLAND, 1830. was by no means uncommon to see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. ... As an example of cost in contesting a county elec- tion, it is on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were £300,000. ... It is not to be supposed that a condition of things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far back as 174.5, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de Spencer) moved an amend- ment to the Address in favour of Reform ; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the borough representation as ' the rotten part of the constitution,' and likened it to a ' mortified limb'; the Duke of Richmond of that day, in 1780, in- troduced a bill into the House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1783, 1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolu- tions in favour of Reform. . . . After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr. (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1793, he presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793, 1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large majorities. . . . From the beginning of the 19th century to the year 1815 — with the ex- ception of a few months after the Peace of Amiens in 1803 — England was at war. During that time Reform dropped out of notice. . . . In 1817. and again in 1818 and 1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for West- minster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of Reform before the House of Com- mons. On each occasion he was defeated by a tremendous majority. . . . The next ten years were comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this history is concerned. . . . Two events made the year 1830 particularly opportune for raising the question of Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death of George TV. [June 36], — the second, the deposition of Charles X. of France. . . . For the deposition of Charles — followed as it was very soon by a successful insurrection in Belgium — produced an immense impression upon the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally. In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two continental countries what the people of England had been asking for in vain for years. . . . We must not omit to notice one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation. The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at the time as ' unparalleled in any previous part of our history. ' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute. . . . By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of the Crown in- volved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parlia- ment which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1836. Since the beginning of 1838 the Duke of Wellington had boon Prime Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to dissolve at once. ... In the Parliament thus dissolved, and especially in the session just brought to a close, the question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he af- firmed the conviction ' that the State is at this moment in the most imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' . . . He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell, but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he introduced a spe- cific plan of Reform — a very Radical plan in- deed—but was again ignominiously defeated ; then, on the 33d of February, Lord John Russell . . . asked for leave to bring in a bill for con- ferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepre- sented towns in the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140 ; and finally, on the 38th of May — scarcely two months before the dissolu- tion — Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to estab- lish universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and trien- nial parliaments, but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 333. . . . Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country, not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it occupied all minds. . . . The whole of August and a considerable part of September, therefore, were occupied with the elections, which were attended by an un- paralleled degree of excitement. . . . When all was over, and the results were reckoned up, it was founa that, of the 38 members who repre- sented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were Ministerialists. ... Of the 236 men who were returned by elections, more or less pop- ular, in England, only 79 were Ministerialists. . . . The first Parliament of William IV. met on the 36th of October, but the session was not really opened till the 3d of November, when the King came down and delivered his Speech. . . . The occasion was made memorable, however, not by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. . . . 'The noble Earl [Grey],' said the Duke, ' has alluded to something in the shape of a Par- liamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of Reform ; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which could in any de- gree satisfy my mind that the state of the repre- sentation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment. ... I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am con- cerned, as long as I hold any station in the gov- ernment of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when jjroposed by others. ' Exactly fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's career as Prime Min- ister came for the time to a close. On the 16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been something like a panic in the city, because Ministers, apprehending 981 ENGLAND, 1830. The First Eeform Bill. ENGLAND, 1830-1832. disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, "witli the Lord Mayor at the Guildhall. On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on the part of the Oppo- sition, having reference to the civil list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his continuance in office was impossible." — W. Heaton, The Three Refm-ms of Parliament, ch. 1-2. Also in: A. Paul, Mist, of Eeform, ch. 1-6. — W. Bagehot, Essays on Parliavientary Reform, essay 2. — H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elec- tions. — S. Walpole, The Electorate and the Legis- lature, ch. 4. — E. A. Freeman, Decayed Boroughs (Hist. Essays, 4th seriei<). A. D. 1830-1832. — The great Reform of Rep- resentation in Parliament, under the Ministry of Earl Grey. — "Earl Grey was the new Minis- ter; and Mr. Brougham his Lord Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the government would ' take into immediate con- sideration the state of the representation, with a view to the correction of those defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of time ; and with a view to the reestablishment of that confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and the pres- ervation of the government.' The government were now pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform ; and during the Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the cause was eagerly supported by the people. ... So great were the difficulties with which the govern- ment had to contend, that they needed all the encouragement that the people could give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king, — the interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to overcome, had sought to purchase, — the opposition of two thirds of the House of Lords, and perhaps of a majority of the House of Commons, — and above all, the strong Tory spirit of the country. ... On the 3d February, when Parliament reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had succeeded in framing ' a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation,' and which ' had received the unanimous consent of the whole government.'. . . On the 1st March, this measure was brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, to whom, — though not in the cabinet, — this honorable duty had been justly confided. ... On the 22d JIarch, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House of 608, — probably the greatest number which, up to that time, had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April, on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General Gascoyue, that the number of members returned for England ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On that same night, they were again defeated on a question of adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was de- cisive. The very next day. Parliament was pro- rogued by the king in person, ' with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It was one of thu moct critical days iu the history of our country. . . . The people were now to decide the question; — and they decided it. A triumphant body of re- formers was returned, pledged to carry the reforni bill ; and on the 6th July, the second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a ma- jority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions ensued in committee, — night after night; and the bill was not disposed of until the 31st September, when it was passed by a majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain ; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October, after a debate of five nights, — one of the most memorable by which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a great event in history, — the Ijill was rejected on the second reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to think of resigning ; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbu- lence, and danger [see Bristol: A. D. 1831], met again on the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought in, — changed in many respects, — and much improved by reason of the recent census, and other statistical investigations. Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of 162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons, and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of again re- jecting it could not be concealed, — the courage of some was shaken, — the patriotism of others aroused ; and after a debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the narrow ma- jority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were preparing to change its essential character by amendments. Meanwhile the agi- tation of the people was becoming dangerous. . . . The time had come, when either the Lords nuist be coerced, or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebring- ton, an address was immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of unaltered confi- dence iu the late ministers, and imploring his Majesty ' to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its es- sential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House.'. . . The public excitement was greater than ever ; and the government and the people were In imminent danger of a bloody collision, when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The bill was now se- cure. The peers averted the threatened addition to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and the bill, — the Great Charter of 1832, — at length received the Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it 982 ENGLAND, 1830-1833. Social and In- dxistrial Reforms. ENGLAND, 1833-1833. corrected the faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than half a century. The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty- six of these, — having less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members, — were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000 inhabi- tants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Mel- combe Regis lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The next evil had been, that large populations were unrepre- sented; and this was now redressed. Twenty- two large towns, including metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning two members ; and 20 more of returning one. The large county populations were also regarded in the distribu- tion of seats, — the number of county members being increased from 94 to 159. The larger counties were divided ; and the number of mem- bers adjusted with reference to the importance of the constituencies. Another evil was the re- stricted and unequal franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household fran- chise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but residence within the borough was attached as a condition to their right of voting. . . . The county constituency was enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms of years, and of tenants- at-will paying a rent of £50 a year. . . . The de- fects of the Scotch representation, being even more flagrant and indefensible than those of Eng- land, were not likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. . . . The entire representation was remodelled. Forty -five mem- bers had been assigned to Scotland at the Union : this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted to counties, and 23 to cities and burglis. The county franchise was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to cer- tain classes of leaseholders ; and the burgh fran- chise to all £10 householders. The representa- tion of Ireland had many of the defects of the English system. . . . The right of election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in £10 householders ; and large additions were made to the county constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105." — T. E. May, Const. Hist/ of Eng., 1760-1860, ch. 6 (v. 1). Also in : W. N. Molesworth, Hist, of the Re- form Bill of 1832.— W. Jones, Biog. Sketches of the Beform Ministers. — Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, ch. 21-22.— S. Walpole, Hist, of Eng. from 1815, ch. 11 («. 2). A. D. 1831. — First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories. See Conserva- tive Party. A. D. 1831-1832. — Intervention in the Neth- erlands. — Creation of the kingdom of Belgium. — War with Holland. See Netherlands; A. D. 1830-1833. A. D. 1832-1833.— Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies. — Trade monopoly of the East India Company iwithdrawn. — Factory Bill. — Irish tithes. — "The period which suc- ceeded the passing of the Reform Bill was one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. . . . The first great reform was the complete abolition of the system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had itself been sup- pressed so far as we could suppress it long be- fore that time, but now the whole system of "West Indian slavery was brought to an end [see Slavery, Negro: A. D. 1834-1838]. ... A long agitation of the small but energetic anti- slavery party brought about this practical result in 1833. . . . Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macau- lay, father of the historian and statesman, Thomas Powell Buxton, Wilberforce, Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate freedom to all chil- dren subsequently born, and to all those who were then under six years of age ; while it de- termined for all other slaves a period of appren- ticeship, lasting five years in one class and seven years in another, after which they attained abso- lute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000 for the compensation of the slave-owners. ' ' Another reform of no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the world [see India: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home, slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in the great mines and factories. No law up to this time regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours of labour in factories. ... A commission was appointed to investigate the condition of those who worked in the factories. Lord Ash- ley, since everywhere known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, . . . brought forward the motion which ended in the appointment of the commis- sion. The commission quickly brought together an Immense amount of evidence to show the terrible effect, moral and physical, of the over- working of women and children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting by law the durationof the hours of labour. . . . The principle of legislative interference to protect children working in factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see Factory Legislation]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give that principle a more extended application. . . . Irish tithes were one of the grievances which came under the ener- getic action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the maintenance of the church es- tablislmient in which they did not believe, and under whose roofs they never bent In worship." In 1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in favor of the extinction of tithes ; but the Government undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge." — J. McCarthy, The Epoch of Reform, ch. 7-8. 983 ENGLAND, 1833-1833. Qiteen Victoria. ENGLAND, 1837-1839. Also in: C. Knight, Popular Sist. of Eng., v. 8, ch. 17.— H. Martineau, Sist. of the Thirty Years' Peace, bk. 4, ch. 6-9 {v. 2-3). A. D. 1833-1840. — Turko-Egyptxan ques- tion and its settlement. — The capture of Acre. — Bombardment of Alexandria. See Turks: A, D. 1831-1840. A. D. 1833-1845.— The Oxford orTractarian Movement. See Oxford or Tbactarian Move MBNT. A. D. 1834-1837. — Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry. — The first Mel- bourne Administration. — Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second. — Death of William IV. — Accession of Queen Victoria. — " On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward . . . resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population ; that it was the right of the State, and of Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the tem- poral possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint a commission of in- quiry ; they hoped thereby to Induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already In government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news was received of the resignation of four of the most conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any inter- ference with church property with abhorrence ; they were Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon. . . . Owing to the difference of opinion in the Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon ; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mul- grave. The Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and circum- stances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the min- istry depended chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, in- structing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The sensation in London was great ; the dismissal of the ministry was consid- ered unconstitutional; the act of the king was wholly without precedent. . . . The Duke of Wellington, from November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one col- league. Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal. while at the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. This temporary gov- ernment was called a dictatorship. ... On Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been called, he waited upon the king and ac- cepted the oflice of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined. Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. . . . The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by Welling- ton, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen ; Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor ; Harding, Sec- retary for Ireland; and Lord Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a hos- tile House of Commons. . . . The Prime Minis- ter therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Par- liament, and took the opportunity [in what was called ' the Tam worth manifesto '] of declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question. . . . The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favorable to the existing government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals. . . . Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution, ' That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satis- factory and final adjustment which does not em- body the temporalities of the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27, and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the fol- lowing day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that in consequence of the reso- lution in the House of Commons, the ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later. Viscount Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords, stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First Lord of the Treasury. ... On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflam- mation of the lungs, had greatly increased. . . . On Tuesday, June 20th, the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty had ex- pired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign, leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece, Alexandrina Vic- toria." — A. H. McC3haa.n, Abridged Hist, of Etig- land, pp. 565-570. Also ik : W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Pobert Peel, v. 2, ch. 10-12.— W. M. Torrens, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, v. 2, ch. 1-8. — J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, ch. 18-20 (!'. 2). A. D. 1836-1839.— Beginning of the Anti- Corn-Law Agitation. See Tariff Legisla- tion (England) : A. D. 1836-1839. A. D. 1837. — Separation of Hanover. See Hanover: A. D. 1837. A. D. 1837-1839.— Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria. — End of personal rule.— Be- ginning of purely constitutional government. 984 ENGLAND, 1837-1839. The Victorian Literature. ENGLAND, 1837-. — Peel and the Bedchamber Question. — "The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Mel- bourne]. 'Peel,' he said, ' has no manners, and I have no small talk.' He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her com- panions. He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in these is- lands was to begin. The late King had advanced somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the Tories. The Whigs had many trou- bles. They were not reformers enough for the great body of their supporters. . . . The Radi- cals had split off from them. They could not manage O'Connell. The Chartist fire was al- ready burning. There was many a serious crisis in foreign policy — in China and in Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mis- sion of Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid them open to new at- tacks from their enemies. On the top of all came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5. Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7, 1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she was sorry to part with her late Minis- ters, and that she did not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to act in accor- dance with constitutional usages. Peel accepted the task of forming an Administration. And then came the famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question' — the 'question de ju- pons.' The Queen wished to retain her ladies- in-waiting ; Peel insisted that there must be some change. 'Two of these ladies were closely re- lated to Whig statesmen whose policy was dia- metrically opposed to that of Peel on no less im- portant a question than the Government of Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not under- take to govern under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right. ... Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it, got back ' behind the petticoats of the ladies-in- waiting.' "—J. McCarthy, Sir Bobert Peel, ch. 12. Alsoin: W. N. Molesworth, Hist, of Eng., 1830-1874, V. 2, ch. 1.— H. Dunckley, Lord Mel- bourne, ch. 11. A. D. 1837-. — The Victorian Age in Litera- ture. — "It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria will stand out in history as the period of a literature as distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, al- though not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious to note how sharply and completely the litera- ture of Victoria separates itself from that of tlic era whose heroes were Scott, Byron, and Words- worth. Before Queen Victoria came to the throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead. Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey and Moore ; and Savage Landor died much later still. But Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of them added a cubit or an inch to his in- tellectual stature from that time ; some of them even did work which distinctly proved that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than its complete .severance from the leadership of that which had gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very convenient for the pur- poses of this history, that the literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and historians who were making their fame with the beginning of the reign had done all their best work and made their mark before these later years, and were followed by a new and different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different sources, and challenging comparison as antago- nists rather than disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years of the reign." — J. McCarthy, The Literature of the Victorian Reign {Appletons' Journal, Jan., 1879, p. 498). — "The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these characteristics continue for generations without apparent break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not terminate with Elizabeth. In one important re- spect, however, it differs from most of those epochs which derive their appellation from a sov- ereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo, Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary ad- vance, a claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had alternately prevailed in successive periods. De- light and Utility met. Truth and Imagination kissed each other. Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose. The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality of aspect which would alone render our 985 ENGLAND, 1837-. The Victorian Literature. ENGLAND, 1837- Queen's reign intenectually memorable. Look- ing back to "the 18th century in England, we see the spirit of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers, and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of an- tiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely, when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative composition returns, the half -century immediately preceding her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the elder Mill, and others compose, in- deed, books of great value, but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unat- tained since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion of its predecessors. " — R. Garnett, Literature (The Beign of Queen Victoria, ed. by T. H. Ward. t\ 2, pp. 445-446).— "The most conspicuous of the substantial dis- tinctions between the literature of the present day and that of the first quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose and Verse. In the Georgian era ver.se was in the ascendant; in the Victorian era the su- premacy has passed to prose. It is not easy for any one who has grown up in the latter to esti- mate aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's, or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by any one who remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the mightier character of the events and circumstances in the midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its re- ception of the succession of great victories that, ever thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to Waterloo — from the last fight of Nelson to the last of Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every city and town and humblest vDlage in the land, have been heard since then. ... Of course, there was plenty of prose also written throughout the verse era ; but no book in prose that was then produced greatly excited the pub- lic mind, or drew any considerable amount of at- tention, till the Waverley novels began to ap pear; and even that remarkable series of works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that result. Of tlic other prose writing that then went on what was most effec- tive was that of the periodical press. — of the Edin- burgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date, of Blackwood's Magazine and the Lou- don Magazine (the latter with Charles Lamb ;ind De Quincey among its contributors), — much of it owing more or less of its power to its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poeti'}' to prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness always ends in." — G. L. Craik, Compendious Hist, of Eng. Literature, i>. 2, j>p. 553-555. — "What . . . are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in verse ? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of which this age has been extraordinarily prolific ; sometimes assuming tlie form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott; sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the Hellenics of Landor ; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in the work of Tenny- son ; sometimes aiming at psychological analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning; sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe ; sometimes indulging flights of pure artis- tic fancy, as in Keats' "Eudyraiou" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and be- cause it results in a picture. . . . No literature and no age has been more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti, Clough, Swinburne, Ar- nold, Tennyson, and I do not know how many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The causes are not far to seek. Without a com- prehensive vehicle like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves, subjectively, introspectively, obeying im- pulses from nature and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen, but as they were this man or that woman. . . . When they sang, they sang with their particular voice ; and the lyric is the natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is this Victorian lyric I It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's ' Ancient Mariner ' and Keats' odes, Clough's ' Easter day ' and Tennyson's ' Maud,' Swinburne's ' Songs before Sunrise ' and Browning's 'Dramatis Persons,' Thomson's ' City of Dreadful Night ' and Mary Robinson's ' Handful of Honeysuckle.?,' Andrew Lang's Bal- lades and Sharp's ' Weird of Michael Scot,' Dob- son's dealings with the eighteenth century and Noels 'Child's Garland, '"Barnes's Dorsetshire Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's ' Pagans Drinking Chant,' Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's ' Pan is Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal. The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inex- 986 ENGLAND, 1837-. Jlie Chartists. ENGLAND, 1838-1843. haustible that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off scores of poems by ad- mired authors, and yet not fall upon the same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our century, debarred from epic, de- Ijarred from drama, falls back upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as Wordsworth's ' Ex- cursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan 'and 'Childe Har- old,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's 'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be classified in either species. They are partly autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes itself dis- tinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the translations, of which so many have been made ; some of them real masterpieces and additions to our literature." — J. A. Symonds, A Comparison of EUzahethan with Victorian Poetry {Pm'tnightly Bev., Jan. 1, 1889, pp. 62-64). — The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of per- spective ; and it is this which in a wide sense dis- tinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life, and thence of art. . . . It is . . . the present aim of art to throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can hardly con- trive, but which the novel professes to manage for those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself. . . . There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, round- ness and balance, but, to us, a want of fulness ; in the Victorian, amplified knowledge, but a fall- ing short of comprehensiveness. And adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its most expressive literary form. The limita- tions and scope of the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as the Eliza- bethan lived with all his might and was not troubled about many things, his art was intense and round, but restricted ; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treat- ment of life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not, however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its makers. In pos- sibility it is indeed the greater of the two, being more epical ; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly non-Eliza- bethan. It argues what Burns would call a casti- gated pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. . . . Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made powerful by ro- mance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it ; for they both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge, taste, and perception." — T. D. Robb. The Eliza- bethan Drama and the Victorian Novel {Lippin- cott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891, pp. 520-522). A. D. 1838-1842.— The Chartist agitation.— "When the Parliament was opened by tCe Queen on the 5th of February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to a state of domes- tic affairs which presented an unhappy con- trast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the coun- try to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dan- gerous and illegal practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been issued against illegal Chartist assem- blies, several of which had been held, says the proclamation, ' after sunset by torchlight. ' The persons attending these meetings were armed with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the most inflam- matory language. . . . The document called 'The People's Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838, comprised six points: — universal suffrage, excluding, however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal electoral districts ; vote by ballot ; annual parlia- ments; no property qualification for members; and a paj'ment to every member for his legisla- tive services. These principles so quickly rec- ommended themselves to the working-classes that in the session of 1839 the number of signa- tures to a petition presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a quarter. The mid- dle classes almost universally looked with ex- treme jealousy and apprehension upon any at- tempt for an extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most part regarded the pro- ceedings of the Chartists with a contempt which scarcely concealed their fears. This large sec- tion of the working population very soon became divided into what were called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As a nat- ural consequence, the principles and acts of the physical-force Chartists disgusted every sup- porter of order and of the rights of property." — C. Knight, Popular Hist, of Eng., v. 8, eh. 23.— "Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and elo- quence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the class whom Kingsley has de- scribed in his ' Alton Locke ' ; some were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanat- ics; and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere. Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, ap pears to have been sincere, and to have person- ally lost more than he gained by his Chartism. . . . He was of commanding presence, great stat- ure, and almost gigantic strength. He had edu cation ; he had mixed in good society ; he belonged to an old family. . . . There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like Thomas Cooper, . . . devoted, impassioned, full of poetic aspiration, and no 987 ENGLAND, 1838-1843. Penny Postage. ENGLAND, 1840. scant measure of poetic inspiration as well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. . . . Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever joined a sinking cause. ... It is necessary to read sucli a book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to under- stand how genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at the heart of the Cliart- ist movement, and how bitter was the suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of stout working men who, in a country like England, might well have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were only too will- ing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the ' bread tax ' became identified in the minds of the very best of the working class, and Iden- tified justly, with the system of political and economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. ... A whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and con- ducted by Feargus O'Connor, was the most popu- lar and influential of them; but every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at which sometimes very violent language was employed. ... A formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. . . . Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn- Law leaders; but all such attempts proved fail- ures. The Chartists would not give up their Charter ; many of them would not renounce the hope of seeing it carried by force. The Govern- ment began to prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprison- ment at Newport, In Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue [November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict occurred In which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some 50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams, and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high treason, and were sentenced to death; but tlie sentence was commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the Chartist agi- tation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the attempt at Newport and its consequences. . . . There was no lack of what were called energetic measures on the part of the Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds In most cases they were convicted and sentenced to terras of imprisonment. . . . The working classes grew more and more bitter against the Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain their own ends. . . . There was a profound distrust of the middle class and their leaders," and it was for tliat rea- son that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law movement, then in full prog- ress. "It is clear that at that time the Chart- ists, who represented the bulk of the artisan class In most of the large towns, did in their very hearts believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what are called the ruling class did really believe the Eng- lish working men who joined the Chartist move- ment to be a race of fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if thej' were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove them- selves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all established securities of society." — J. Mc- Carthy, Hist, of Our Own Times, ch. 5 (». 1). — Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of the Chartists was that of appoint- ing and observing what was to be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to concede the charter. " — W. N. Molesworth, Hist, of Eng. , 1830-1874, V. 2, ch. 5. Also in : T. Cooper, Life, by himself, ch. 14-23. — W. Lovett, Life and Struggles, ch. 8-15. — T. Frost, Forty Years' Recollections, ch. 3-11. — H. Jephsou, The Platform, pt. 4, ch. 17 and 19 {v. 3). A. D. 1839-1842. — The Opium War with China. See Chtna: A. D. 1839-1842. A. D. 1840. — Adoption of Penny-Postage. — "In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap and uniform postage. A Com- mittee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries through- out the session of 1838, and arrived at the con- viction that the plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weigh- ing more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of January, 1840. Its final accomplisliment is mainly due to the sa- gacity and perseverance of the man who first con- ceived the scheme."- — C. Knight, Crown Hist, of Eng., p. 883. — "Up to this time the rates of pos- tage on letters were very heavy, and varied ac- cording to the distance. For instance, a single letter conveyed from one part of a town to an- other cost 2d. ; a letter from Reading, to London 7d. ; from Brighton, 8d. ; from Aberdeen, Is. 3id. ; from Belfast, Is. 4d. If the letter was writ- ten on more than a single sheet, the rate of pos- tage was much higher." — W. N. Molesworth, Hist, of Eng., 1830-1874, v. 2, ch. 1. Also in : G. B. Hill, Life of Sir Rowland Hill. A. D. 1840. — The Queen's marriage. — " On January 16, 1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person, announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha — a step which she trusted would be ' conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own domestic happiness.' . . . It was indeed a mar- riage founded on affection. . . . The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin. He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau, one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26, 1819. ... A mar- riage between the Princess Victoria and Prince Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on both sides, but it was always 988 ENGLAND, 1840. Peel and ttie Com Laws. ENGLAND, 1846. wisely resolved that nothing should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she herself showed a distinct liking for lier cousin. In 1836, Prince Albert was brouglit by his father to Eng- land, and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she seems at once to have been drawn toward him in tlie manner whicli her fam- ily and friends would most have desired. . . . The marriage of the Queen and the Prince tools place on February 10, 1840."— J. McCarthy, ffist. of Our Own Times, ch. 7 (c 1). A. D. 1841-1842. — Interference in Afghanis- tan.— The first Afghan War. See Afghanis- tan: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1843; 1842-1869. A. D. 1841-1842.— Fall of the Melbourne Ministry. — Opening of the second administra- tion of Sir Robert Peel.— In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do some- thing for freedom of trade. . . . Colonial timber and sugar were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign timber and sugar ; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a heavier duty ac- cording as it was imported from countries of slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to replace the slid- ing scale of the Corn Laws tlien in force [see Tariff Legislation (Engi,.\nd): A. D. 1815- 1828] witli a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter. . . . The concessions offered by tlie Ministry, too small to excite tlie enthusiasm of tlie free traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody ex- pected the Ministers to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June by a single vote in a House of 633 members. Instead of resigning, the Ministers appealed to tlie country. Tlie elections went on tiirough tlie last days of June and the whole of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in tlie House of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August. Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords moved amendments to the Ad- dress, which were carried by majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." Tlie Jliuistry resigned and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its head, as First Lord of tlie Treasury. " Wel- lington entered the Cabinet without otfice, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third time tlie honours of Lord Chancellor. " Among the lesser members of the Administration — not in the Cabinet — was Mr. Gladstone, who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time Peel experi- enced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Ducliess of Bedford, tlie Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in tlie Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. . . . Dur- ing the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the deficiency in the reve- nue without laying new burthens upon the hum- bler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by encouraging the importation of raw material ; to assuage distress by making the price of pro- visions lower and more regular, without taking away that protection which he still believed es- sential to British agriculture: these were the tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. . . . Having solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of Buccleugh. . . . The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws affecting the im- portation of corn and other commodities. It an- nounced the beginmng of a revolution which few persons in England thought possible, although it was to be completed in little more than ten years." —P. C. Montague, Life of Sir Robert Peel, ch. 7-8. AisoiN: J. R. Thursfleld, Peel, ch. 7-8.— W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, v. 3, ch. 3-5. — J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, ch. 22 (». 2). A. D. 1842. — The Ashburton Treaty. See United States of Am.: A. D. 1843. A. D. 1844.— The Bank Charter Act. See MOKEY AND ISanking : A. D. 1844. A. D. 1845-1846. — Repeal of the Corn Laws. See Tariff Legislation : A. D. 18-15-1846. A. D. 1845-1846. — First war with the Sikhs. See India: A. D. 1845-1849. A. D. 1846. — Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United States. See Oregon: A. D. 1844-1846. A. D. 1846. — The vengeance of the Tory- Protectionists. — Overthrow of Peel. — Advent of Disraeli. — Ministry of Lord John Russell. — "Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extin- guishing the duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr. O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The Liberal party, at least when out of of- fice, had usually made it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not attended with some promises of legislative reform. The Eng- lish Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join with these other oppo- nents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty Protectionists followed Lord George Ben- tinck into the lobby against the Bill, in combina- tion with the Free Traders, the Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The divi- sion took place on the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, June 35, and there was a majority of 73 against the Ministry. "—J. McCarthy, T7ie Epoch of Reform, p. 183.— The revengeful Tory-Protec- tionist attack on Peel was led by Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just mak- ing himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust Peel, and, ' must therefore refuse to give him unconsti- 989 ENGLAND, 1846. TKe Chartists Again, ENGLAND, 1849-1850. tutional powers.' ... He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted his promises. . . . 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be tlie leader, declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed. Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and uncer- tainty, descended the task of again building together the shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen. Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased, whether they liked it or not. . . . He was without Court favour, and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He was young, too— only 42 — after all the stir that he had made. There was no- example of a rise so sudden under such conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them. Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief; but Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate them- selves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single person that they had who was equal to the situation. ... He had overthrown Peel and suc- ceeded to Peel's honours." — J. A. Froude, Lord Beaconsfidd, ch. 9. — Although the Tory-Protec- tionists had accomplished the overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay Pay- master-General. — W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Pe-el, )!. 3, ch. 11.— The most im- portant enactment of the Coercion Bill ' ' (which subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that which conferred on the executive Government the power in proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of pro- claiming a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the district." — J. F. Bright, Hist, of Eng., period i, p. 137. Also in: S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Rus- sell, ch. 16 {v. 1). — B. Disraeli, Lord George Ben- tinck, ch. 14-16. A. D. 1846.— Difference with France on the Spanish marriages. See France; A. D. 1841- 1848. A. D. 1848.— The last Chartist demonstra- tion. — "The more violent Chartists had broKen from the Radical reformers, and had themseives divided into two sections; for their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He had entered iato a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful char- acter. . . . Hehad also iniudiciously taken up a position of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated many of his sup- porters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846 con- tained several representatives of the Chartist principles, and O'Connor himself had been re- turned for Nottingham by a large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry. The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to the agitation. The coun- try was filled with meetings at which violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped of the forcible establishment of a repub- lic in England. A new Convention was sum- moned for the 6tli of April, a vast petition was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that half a million of people would have been present, was summoned to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the purpose of carrying the petition to tlie House in procession. The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought necessary to swear in special con- stables, and the wealthier classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are said to have been no less than 170,000 special con- stables. The military arrangements were en- trusted to the Duke of Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified ; public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. . . . Such a display of determina- tion seemed almost ridicidous when compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common. Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commis- sioner of Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting, but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur. His heart had already begun to fail him, and he . . . used all his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent advice was fol- lowed, and no disturbance of any importance took place. . . . The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the disclo- sures attending the presentation of the petition." There were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a deathblow to Chartism." — J. F. Bright, Hist, of Eng., period ^, jrj). 176-178. Also in; S. Walpole, Hist, of Eng. from 1815, ch. 20 (ii. 4). A. D. 1848-1849. — Second war with the Sikhs. — Conquest and annexation of the Pun- jab. See India; A. D. 184.5-1849. A. D. 1849. — Repeal of the Navigation Laws. See N.^viG.\TioN L-\ws; A. I). 1849. A. D. 1849-1850.— The Don Pacifico Affair. — Lord Palmerston's speech. — The little diffi- culty with Greece which came to a crisis in the last weeks of 1849 and the first of 1850 (see Greece; A. D. 1846-1850). and which was com- monly called the Don Pacifico Affair, gave occa- sion for a memorable speech in Parliament by Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy 990 ENGLAND, 1849-1850. Palmerston and, the French Coup d^Eiat. ENGLAND, 1851-1852. against attacks. The speech (.June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly admired, and proved immensely effective in rais- ing the speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was unquestionably an important land- mark in the life of Lord Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a select few ; for the British public does not read Blue Books, and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign politics at all. . . . But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of the nation, and was re- ceived with a universal verdict of approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the people, and his rise to the premier- ship only a question of time." — L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, eh. 8. Also in; Marquis of Lome, Yiacoxint Palm- erston, ch. 7. — J. McCarthy, Hist, of Our Own Times, ch. 19 {v. 2),— J. Morley, Life of Cobden, 1). 2, ch. 3. — T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, ch. 38 (t: 2). A. D. 1850.— The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States, establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicara- gua Canal. See Nicaragua: A. D. 1850. A. D. 1850.— Restoration of the Roman Episcopate. — The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. See P.'i.PACY: A. D. 1850. A. D. 1850-1852. — The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein Question. See Scandinavian States (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862. A. D. 1851.— The Great Exhibition.— "The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. . . . Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since. Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them at least — those of Paris in 1867 and 1878 — were infinitely superior in the array and display of the products, the dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the play — an impression never to be equalled. ... It was the first or- ganised to gather all the representatives of the world's industry into one great fair. . . . The Hyde Park Exhibition was often described as the festival to open the long reign of Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace. . . . The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince Albert ; and it was his energy and influ- ence which succeeded in carrying the idea into practical execution. . . . Many persons were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its doing any good; not a few still re- garded Prince Albert as a foreigner and a ped- ant, and were slow to believe that anything really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse and protection. . . . There was a great deal of difficulty in selecting a plan for the building. . . . Happily, a sudden inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron ? he asked himself. . . . Mr. Pax- ton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the Royal Commission- ers. He made many improvements afterwards in his design ; but the palace of glass and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of Hyde Park. "—J. McCarthy, Mist, of Our Own Times, ch. 21 {v. 2). Also in : T. Martin, Life of tTie Prince Consort, ch. 33-36, 39, 42-43 (v. 2). , A. D. 1851-1852.— The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from the Cabinet. — Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.— The first Derby-Disraeli Min- istry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry. — The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis Napoleon made himself master of France (see France: A. D. 1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palm- erston not only expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador] his approval of the 'coup d'etat," but on the 16th of December wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our repre- sentative in Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the success of the French Presi- dent's arbitrary action. This despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence ensued, and as Palmer- ston's explanations were not deemed satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. . . . There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from this time for- ward ; but a very short time only elapsed before he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia, which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom, and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had been very weak for some time. Lord John resigned. Lord Derby formed a Ministry, and invited the co- operation of Palmerston, but the offer was de- clined, as the two statesmen differed on the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn, and other matters." — G. B. Smith, The Prims Ministers of Queen Victoria, pp. 264-265. —"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but it was under- stood that a dissolution of Parliament would take place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the House of Commons], notwithstanding their in- experience, acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general election began, the party had raised itself considerably in public estimation. But for one consideration the country would probably 991 ENGLAND. 1851-1852. War in the Crimea. ENGLAND, 1856-1860. have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to their hands. But that one consideration was all important. . . . The Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent, on Protec- tionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite majority meant a moderate import duty ; and the consequence was that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. . . . Negotiations were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons. But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which accordingly fell ta the ground ; and Lord Derby had to meet the Opposition attack without any reinforcements. ... On the 16th of December, . . . being de- feated on the Budget by a majority of 19, Lord Derby at once resigned." — T. E. Kebbel, Life of the Earl of Derby, ch. 6. — "The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Moles- worth thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became Prime Minister, and Mr. Glad- stone Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of New- castle, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Her- bert."— G. W. E. Russell, TJui Rt. Hon. William Ewart Qladstone, ch. 5. A. D. 1852. — Second Burmese War. — An- nexation of Pegu. See India: A. D. 1852. A. D. 1852-1853. — Abandonment of Protec- tion by the Conservatives. — Further progress in Free Trade. See Tariff Legislation (E.NGi.AND): A. D. 1846-1879; and Trade. A. D. 1853-1855.— Civil-Service Reform. See CrvTL-SERVicE Reform in England. A. D. 1 853- 1 856.— The Crimean War. See Russia: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856. A. D. 1855. — Popular discontent vvith the management of the war. — Fall of the Aber- deen Ministry. — Palmerston's first premier- ship. — A brightening of prospects. — "Our army system entirely broke down [in the Cri- mea], and Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of New- castle were made the scapegoats of the popular indignation. . . . But England was not only suffering from unpreparedness and want of ad- ministrative power in the War department ; there were dissensions in the Cabinet. . . . Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord Aber- deen, after one of the numerous quarrels and reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at his post. ... At a little later stage . . . the difficulties were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the condition of the army be- fore Sebastopol, and Lord John definitively re- signed. The Ministry remained in office to await the fate of Jlr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen now placed the resigna- tion of the Cabinet in the hands of the Queen [Jan. 31, 1855]. . . . Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parlia- mentary influence it was apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it suffered from a fatal want of cohesion." — G. B. Smith, Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pp. 227-230. — "Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief, but Claren- don and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War. Although Palmerston objected to Roe- buck's Committee, he was practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord John Russell." — Marquis of Lome, Viscount Palmerston, ch. 10. — " It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the tried wisdom of Derby, Lans- downe, and John Russell. Far away in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia was a faithless friend. . . . Between the belligerent powers the cloud of sus- picion and distrust grew thicker ; for Abd-el- Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving ; and though there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight- forward only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry. Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of organic reform, had com- pletely relaxed the bouds of Party. If there was noregular Opposition, still less was there a regular majority. . . . And the hand that was to restore order out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. . . . Lord Palmerston was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was considerably over seventy, he still retained a won- derful vigour of constitution. He was soon re- stored to health, and was always to be found at his post. . . . His generalship secured ample majorities for the Government in every division during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can hardly be two opinions." — L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, ch. 10. A. D. 1855. — Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands. See Ionian Islands: A. D. 1815-1863. A. D. 1856-1860.— War writh China.— French alliance in the war. — Capture of Canton. — Entrance into Pekin. — Destruction of the Summer Palace. See China: A. D. 1856-1860 992 ENGLAND, 1857-1858. Cotton Famine. ENGLAND, 1861-1865. A. D. 1 857-1 858.— The Sepoy Mutiny in India. See India: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (July — June). A. D. 1858. — Assumption of the government of India by the Crown. — End of the rule of the East India Co. See India: A. D. 1858. A. D. 1858-1859.— The Conspiracy Bill.— Fall of Palmerston's government. — Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli. — Lord Palmer- ston again Premier. — " On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini, whose head-quarters had previously been in Lon- don. Not witliout some reason it was felt in France tliat such men ought not to be able to find shelter in this country, and the French Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect. Lord Palmerston, alwa}'S anxious to cul- tivate the good feeling of the French nation, de- sired to pass a measure which should give to the British Government the power to banish from England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life of a foreign sovereign. . . . An unfortunate outburst of vituperation against Eng- land in the French press, and the repetition of such language by officers of the French army who were received by the Emperor when thej' waited on liiin as a deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass, and it had been read the first time by a majority of 300. But the foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was obliged to re- sign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant office. . . . Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to the country. . . . The election of 1859 failed to give the Conserva- tives a majority, and soon after the opening of the session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that ' to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and to Palmer- ston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming what was considered the strongest ]\Iin- istry of modem times, so far as the individual ability of its members was concerned. Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the Exchequer." — Marquis of Lome, Viscount Palm- erston, ch. 10-11. Also in: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Con- sort, ch. 83-84. 91-93, and 94 (v. 4).— T. E. Keb- bel. Life of the Earl of Derby, eh. 7. A. b. i860. — The Cobden-Chevalier com- mercial treaty with France. See Tariff Legisl.\tion (France): A. D. 1853-1860. A. D. 1861 (May).— The Queen's Proclama- tion of Neutrality with reference to the Ameri- can Civil War. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1861 (APRn—MAT). '' 993 A. D. 1861 (October). — The allied interven- tion in Mexico. See Mexico: A. D. 1861-1867. A. D. 1861 (November).— The Trent Affair. — Seizure of Mason and Slidell. See United St.\tes of A.M. : A. D. 1861 (November). A. D. 1861-1865. — The Cotton Famine. — "Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of 1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point which they had ever touched, came the news of the American war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of ' the freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders re- fused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions nor their interests. . . . There was a four months' supply held on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and there would be the usual twelve months' sup- ply from other sources ; and by the time this was consumed, and the five months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for during the greater part of the year 1861 tlie market was dull, and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the year the aspect of affairs began to change. . . . The Federals had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly estab- lished Confederate government was doing its best to render it effective. They believed that cottJon ■VPas king in England, and that the old country could not do without it, and would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with those who kept it prisoner. Jlills began to run short tiiUB or to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about it ; and the only evidence of any- thing unusual was at the boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the mid-win- ter height three months earlier than usual. The poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the increase was not of the usual character — it was too early for out-door labour- ers to present themselves; still the difference was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented themselves, and in Decem- ber the increase was again 7,000; so that the re- cipients of relief were at this time 13,000 (or aboiit 35 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now serious thoughts began to agitate many minds ; cotton was very largely held by specula- tors for a rise, the arrivals were meagre in quan- tity, and the rates of insurance began to show that, notwithstanding the large profits on im- ports, the blockade was no longeron paper alone. January, 1862, added 16,000 more to the recipi- ents of relief, who were now 70 per cent abovE the usual number for the same period of the year. But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of boards of guardians were evi- dently no real measure of the distress prevailing. . . . The month of February usually lessens the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins again as soon as the signs of sjiring ap- pear; but in 1863 it added nearly 9,000 to the al- ready large number of extra cases, the recipients ENGLAND, 1861-1863. Cotton Famine. ENGLAND, 1865-1868. being now 105 per cent above the average for the same period of the year. But this average ^ives no idea of the pressure in particular locahties. . . . The cotton operatives were now, if left to themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provi- sions, and those very unequally distributed, and without chart or compass, and no prospect of get- ting to land. Li Ashton there were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9.488 persons absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless de- clined to go to the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, Mid the vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare even the poorest from unnecessary humili- ation ; and organisations spring up for any im- portant work so soon as the necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality. Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stock- port, and Preston ; and in April, Blackburn fol- lowed in the train, and the guardians and the re- lief committees of these several places divided an extra 6, 000 dependents between them. The month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to al- most its lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the re- cipients from the guardians, and 5,000 to the de- pendents on the relief committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich (a part of Manchester) being added to the list. . . . The month of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief committees ; and these six committees had now as many depend- ents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. ... In the month of July, when all un- employed operatives would ordinarily be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a flood, 13,000 ad- ditional applicants being forced to appeal for poor-law relief ; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the seven relief committees. ... In August the flood had become a deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The in- creased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single month 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number diargeable in the same month of the previous j'ear, whilst a further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the relief committees. . . . Most of the cotton on hand at this period was of Indian growth, and needed al- terations of machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun or manufactured. But oh ! how glad would the tens of thousands of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much harder work for one-third less than normal wages. . . . An- other month is past, and October has added to the number under the guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief committees 39,000 more. . . . And now dread winter ap- proaches, and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of thousands who are com- pulsorily idle, and consequently foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies of the season ; who have no means of procuring needful clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as food. . . . The total number of persons chargeable at the end of November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on relief committees, 3007084; total 458,441. . . . There were not wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the English government of the Southern con- federacy in America. And meetings were called in various places to memorialise the government to this effect. Such meetings were always bal- anced by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple recognition would be waste of words ; that it would not bring to our siiores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if adopted would be war ; war in favour of the slave confederacy of the South, and against the free North and North-west, whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a nation 3,000 rniles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the support of slavery, and would also pre- vent our getting the food which we needed from the North equally as much as the cotton from the South. . . . These meetingsand counter meet- ings perhaps helped to steady the action of the government (notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards the South), to con- firm them in the policy of the royal proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all of- fenders. . . . The maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is for the last week in the year 1863, viz. : 485,434 persons ; but in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more were relieved. " — J. Watts, The Facts of the Cotton Famine, ch. 8 and 12. Also in: R. A. Arnold, Hist, of the Cotton Famine.— E. Waugh, Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine. A. D. 1862 (July).— The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama at Liverpool. See Alab.«ia Claims: A. D. 1S63-1864. A. D. 1865. — Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection. See Jamaica: A. D. 1865. A. D. 1865-1868.— Death of Palmerston.— Ministry of Lord John Russell. — Its unsatis- factory Reform Bill and its resignation. — Tri- umph of the Adullamites. — Third administra- tion of Derby and Disraeli, and its Reform Bills. — "On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18, 1865], the premier- ship was intrusted for the second time to Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of Commons. The queen opened her sev- enth parliament (February 6, 1866), in person, for the first time since the prince consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in counties and boroughs, but the op- position of the moderate Liberals, and their join- ing the Conservatives, proved fatal to the meas- ure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl 994 ENGLAND, 1865-1868. Reform BUI of 1867. ENGLAND, 1865-1868. Russell resigned. The government had been personally weakened by the successive deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who, although the Conservative party was in the minority in the House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking the management of the govern- ment : he as Premier and First Lord of the Treas- ury ; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer." — A. H. McCalman, Abridged Hist, of England, p. 603. — "The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The Russell and Gladstone sec- tion of the Cabinet wanted reform : the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thouglit it unne- cessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure, which satisfied nobody, and disap- pointed the expectation of all earnest Reformers. . . . The principal opposition came not from the Conservatives, as miglit have been expected, but from :Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal party, who from the very tirst declared they would have none of it. . . . Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as ' AduUamites ' ; all who were in distress, all who were discontented, had gathered themselves to- gether in the political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government. But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm, carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power. . . . The party of two, whicli in its origin reminded Mr. Bright of ' the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of it,' was gradually rein- forced by deserters from the ranks of the Gov- ernment until at last the Adullarnites were strong enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night, after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the AduUamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an amend- ment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs, Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rat- ing be substituted for a rental qualification ; and the Government was at an end. . . . The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career to Its close. He formally handed over the leader- ship of the party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow his example, and then the long-standing duel between Glad- stone and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the footlights. Meanwhile, however. Lord Derby had taken office [July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons and crossing the stage. . . . The ex- asperated Liberals, however, were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in favour of Reform; monster meetings were held in Hj'de Park; the Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and Mr. Dis- raeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once. They began by proposing a num- ber of resolutions on the subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then they brought a bill founded on them, which, how- ever, was very shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of three of its members — the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount Cranborne, and General Peel — announced their intention of bringing in a comprehensive mea- sure. The measure in question proposed house- hold suffrage in the boroughs subject to the payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he possessed a double quali- fication by rating and by profession. The great objection to the bill was that it excluded 'the compound householder.' The compound house- holder is now as extinct an animal as the pot- walloper found in earlier parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them through his land- lord. Now the occupiers of these very small houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of occupiers in the boroughs, and the omis- sion of them implied a large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party, therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be re- membered, however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote, and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described roughly as ' the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the Liberal party once more split up. The advanced sec- tion were determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they would have no ' drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Com- mons and decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired the name of the ' Tea- Room Party.' The communication of their views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He denounced them in violent lan- guage, and his passion was emulated by Mr. Bright. . . . Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Dis- raeli. The Tea-Room Party, in fact, were mas- ters of the day, and were able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to induce them to admit the principle of household suf- frage pure and simple, and to abolish all dis- tinctions of rating. . . . Not only was the house- hold suffrage clause considerably extended, the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy fran- chises swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the balance of power to a sweeping measure of 995 ENGLAND, 1865-1868. Gladstone's Irish Land Bill. ENGLAND, 1868-1870. feform."— B. C. Skottowe, STiort Hist, of Parlia- ment, ch. 22. — The Reform Bill for England " was followed in 1868 by measures for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was given to all ratepaying house- holders and to lodgers occupying lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except agricultural la- bourers and women." — D. W. 'R&xmK, Hist. Out- line of the Eng. Const., eh. 12, sect. 4. Also in : W. Bagehot, Essays on Parliamen- tary Reform, 3, — G. B. Smith, Life of Oladstone, ch. 17-18 (ii. 2).— W. Robertson, Life and Times if John Bright, ch. 39-40. A. D. 1865-1869. — Discussionof the Alabama Claims of the United States.— The Johnson- Clarendon Treaty and its rejection. See Ala- BAMA Claims; A. D. 1862-1869. A. D. 1867-1868.— Expedition to Abyssinia. See Abyssinia: A. D. 1854-1889. A. D. 1868-1870.— Disestablishment of the Irish Church. — Retirement of the Derby-Dis- raeli Ministry. — Mr. Gladstone in power. — His Irish Land Bill.— "On ilarch 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. ... It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr. Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power to serve it. There was probably not a single Eng- lishman capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the moment when Mr. Glad- stone made his declaration, the fall of the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time. Men only waited to see how Jlr. Gladstone would proceed to procure its fall. Public expec- tation was not long kept in suspense. A few days after the debate on 'Mi. Maguire's motion, Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment, due regard being had to all per- sonal interests and to all individual rights of property. The second resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public patronage ; and the third asked for an address to the Queen, praying that her Majesty would place at the dis- posal of Parliament her interest in the temporali- ties of the Irish Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing that no further appointments should be made, and that the action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868, Mr. Glad- stone proposed his resolutions. Not many per- sons could have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if there were any such, their doubts must have begim to vanish when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions which was given by Lord Stanley. The amend- ment proclaimed even more surely than the reso- lutions the impending fall of the Irish Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the name of the Government and the Conser- vative party; and his amendment merely de- clared that the House, while admitting that con- siderable modifications in the temporalities of the Church in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion ' that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment asked only for delay. . . . The debate was one of great power and interest. . . . When the division was called there were 370 votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval was afEorded for agitation on both sides. . . . Mr. Gladstone's first resolution came to a division about a month after the defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the amendment — 330 votes were given for the resolution; 265 against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65. Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Govern- ment must take some decisive step in consequence of that vote ; and a few days afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary business could be got through. Parliament would be dis- solved and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November. Not for many years had there been so important a general election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. . . . The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything in his own hands, and the coun- try might look for a career of energetic reform. . . . Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new Parlia- ment as Prime Minister. He decided very prop- erly that it would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr. Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age, but there were scarcely any evidences of advanc- ing years to be seen on his face. . . . The Govern- ment he formed was one of remarkable strength. . . . Mr. Gladstone went to work at once with his Irish policy. On March 1, 1869, the Prime 996 ENGLAND, 1868-1870. Army Purchase and University Tests. ENGLAND, 1873-1880. Minister introduced his measure for the disestab- lishment and partial disendowraent of the Irish State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of the Church and was to be recognised by the Govern- ment, and duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts were to be abolished. There were various and complicated arrangements for the protection of the life interests of those already holding positions in the Irish Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would return to the possession of the State when all these interests had been fairly considered and dealt with. . . . Many amend- ments were introduced and discussed ; and some of these led to a controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the controvers}' ended in compromise. . On July 26, 1869, the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church re- ceived the royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much pathetic dignity. He died before the Irish State Church had ceased to live. . . . When the Irish Church had been disposed of, Jlr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish land system. ... In a speech delivered by him during his electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had de- iilared that the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education, and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill into the House of Commons. . . . It recognised a certain property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he tilled. Mr. Glad- stone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist, he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The bill estab- lished a special judiciary machinery for carrying out its provisions. ... It put an end to the reign of the landlord's absolute power ; it reduced the landlord to the level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the country who had anything to sell or hire. . . . The bill passed without sub- stantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree had been hewn down. . . . Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had gone with Irish ideas thus far." — J. McCar- thy, Shoj-t Hist, of Our Own Times, ell. 23. Also m : W. N. Molesworth, Hist, of Eng. , 1830-1874, V. 3, ch. &.— Annual Register, 1869, pt. 1 .• Eng. Hist. , ch. 3-3, and 1870, ch. 1-3. A. D. 1870.— The Education Bill. See Edu- cation, Modern ; European countries. — Eng- land: A. D. 1699-1870. A. D. 1871. — Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests. — Defeat of the Ballot Bill. — "The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th of February. It abolished the system by which rich men obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army, and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the regula- tion value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal "Warrant, but which in practice was never re- garded]. In future, commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by opei} competition, or who had served as subalterns in the Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned oflicers. . . . The debate, which seemed inter- minable, ended in an anti-clima.x that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the country. . . . The Army Regula- tion Bill thus passed the Second Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again obstructed. . . . Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled her warrant per- mitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indig- nantly termed ' the high-handed though not il- legal ' exercise of the "lloyal Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They "carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it, and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill without any altera- tions. . . . The Session of 1871 was also made memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were exhausted. . . . When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the real motive which dictated the . . . obstruction of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly revealed. The Lords re- jected the Bill on the 18th of August, not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because it had come to them too late for proper considera- tion. Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to students of all creeds and faiths. " — R. Wilson, Life and Times of Queen Victoria, v. 2, ch. 16. Also in: G. W. E. Russell, T/ie Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, ch. 9. A. D. 1871-1872. — Renewed negotiations with the United States. — The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award. See Alabama Claims: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872. A. D. 1873-1879.— Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party and organization of the Land League. Sec Ireland: A. D. 1873-1879. A. D. 1873-1880.— Decline and fall of the Gladstone government. — Disraeli's Ministry. — His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beacons- field. — The Eastern Question. — Overthrow of the administration. — The Second Gladstone 997 ENGLAND, 1873-1880. Beacoiisfield and Gladstone. ENGLAND, 1883. IVIinistry. — " One of the little wars in wbich we had to engage broke out with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their neighbour- hood. Troops and marines under Wolseley . . . were sent out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th, 1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital, Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which he withdrew all claims •of sovereignty over the tribes under our protec- tion. The many Liberal measures carried by the Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful body against the Adminis- tration, which, on attempting to carry an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware ■of its unpopularity, as the second reading was •only carried by a majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but astute, Disraeli de- clined to undertake the responsibility of govern- ing the country with the House of Commons then existing, consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the Ex- ■chequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January, 1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income tax, and a re- duction in some other ' imposts. ' The elections went against him. The ' harassed ' interests •overturned the Jlinistry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the Conservative Gov- ernment under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874), the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the reduction of taxation. Conse- quently the sugar duties were abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound. This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little over si.x years. . . . Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfleld, was fond of giving the coun- try surprises. One of these consisted in the pur- -chase of the interest of the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (Feb- ruary, 1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic provinces in the event of any future Russian encroach- ments. ... As war had broken out in several •of the Turkish provinces (1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents against the Sultan, whom England was bound to sup- port by solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise b}' the conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000 troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon this manoeuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office, which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). . . . The war proving disas- trous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (Feb- ruary, 1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war seemed imminent. Through the inter- cession, however, of Bismarck, the German Chan- cellor, war was averted, and a congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfleld ; the result being the sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that the town of Brzeroum •was handed back to Turkey. Our ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister loftily declaring, that they had brought back ' peace with honour. ' . . . Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less discredit on the Slinistry. . . . The Parliament was dis- solved March 24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the Liberals that Beacons- field resigned (April 23rd). Early in the fol- lowing year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers, but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 187.5 relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord Hartington yet the ' Bulgarian Atrocities ' and other writings brought him again so prominent before the pub- lic that his leadership was universally acknowl- edged by the party. ... He now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who also held them. . . . The result of the general election of 1880 was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland, resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords' hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to legislate anew on the Irish Land Question : and (1881) carried through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish Land Act, which for the first time in the history ol that country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were in- cluded in this beneficent legislation." — R. Johns- ton, A Slwrt Sist. of the Queen's Reign, pp. 49- 57. Also in; J. A. Froude, Lord Beaeonsfield, ch. 16-17.— G. B. Smith, Life of Oladstone, ch. 22- 28 (v. 2).— H. Jephson, Th^ Platform, ch. 21-22 (V. 2). A. D. 1877. — Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India. See India: A. D. 1877. A. D. 1877-1878.— The Eastern Question again. — Bulgarian atrocities. — Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey. — War- clamor of " the' Jingoes." — The fleet sent through the Dardanelles. — Arrangement of the Berlin Congress. See B.vlk.vn and D.^nubian States; A. D. 1875-1878; and Turks: A. D. 1878. A. D. 1877-1881. — Annexation of the Trans- vaal. — The Boer War. See South Africa; A. D. 1806-1881. A, D. 1878.— The Congress of Berlin. — Ac- quisition of the control of Cyprus. See Turks : A. D. 1878. A. D. 1878-1880. — The second Afghan War. See Afgil^nistan ; A. D. 1.869-1881. A. D. 1880. — Breach bet-sveen the Irish Party and the English Liberals.— Coercion Bill and Land Act. See Ireland: A. D. 1880; and 1SH1-1S82. A. D. 1882.— War in Egypt. See Egypt : A. 1). 1875-1882, and 1882-1883. A. D. 1883. — The Act for Prevention of Cor- rupt and Illegal Practices at Parliamentary 998 ENGLAND, 1883. Corrupt Practices in Elections. ENGLAND, 1884-1885. Elections. — "Prior to the General Electioa of 1880 there were those who hoped aud believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were decreas- ing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures following the General Election proved to the most sanguine that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger aggregate suras were expended in bribery and treating, never probably had so man}' persons been bribed and treated as at the General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of seven of these the reports of the Commissioners ap- pointed under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to which corruption of all kinds had grown. ... A most serious feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they afforded that bribery was regarded as a meri- torious not as a disgraceful act. Thirty magis- trates were reported as guilty of corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor. 3Iayors, aldermen, town- councillors, solicitors, the agents of the candi- dates, and others of a like class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a part of the necessary machinery for conducting an elec- tion. "Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained municipal honours, not only after they had committed these practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary Return furnished still more con- clusive proof, that election expenses were ex- travagant even to absurdity, and moreover were on the increase. The lowest estimate of the ex- penditure during the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the prospects of future elections were indeed alarm- ing. . . . The necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil en- countered. . . . The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January, 1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt practices ' would be submitted to Parliament, and on tlie following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the House of Commons, at a time when members and con- stituents alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that intervened be- tween the introduction of the Bill and its finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of Irish legislation), sufHced very considerably to cool the enthusiasm of Parliament and the pub- lic. Yet enough desire for reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January 1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which has now become the Parliamen- tary Elections Act of 1883, was in its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to strike hard and home at corrupt practices ; the second was to prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary. Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating was now added to the same class of offences, and tbe punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to hard labour. . . . Besides punishment on conviction, incapacities of a serious character are to result from a person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Judges or Election Commissioners. . . . A candidate reported personally guilty of cor- rupt practices can never sit again for the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons, whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered incapable of hold- ing any public office or exercising any franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so found guilty are magistrates, barristers, so- licitors, or members of other honourable pro- fessions, they are to be reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and dealt with as in the case of professional mis- conduct. Licensed victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to renew their licenses. . . . The employment of all paid assistants except a very limited number is for- bidden; no conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands, torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these prohibitions of specific objects were not considered suflicieut. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy and reckless can- didates would have found other channels in which to flow. . . . And thus it was that the ' maxi- mum scale ' was adopted as at once the most direct and the most efficacious means of limit- ing expenditure. Whether by himself or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate is forbidden to spend more in ' the con- duct and management of an election ' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which depend in each case on the numerical extent of the con- stituency." — H. Hobhouse, The Parliamentary Elections {Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883, pp. 1-8. A. D. 1884-1885.— The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill. — The existing qualifications and disqualifications of the Suf- frage. — "Soon after Sir. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr. Trevelyau became a member of his Administration. Already the Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to office — Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. . . . Their presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to prove mis- leading. It was understood from the first that, with such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his speeches in Mid- lothian. ... On the 17th of October, 1883, a great Conference was held at Leeds, for the pur- pose of considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The Conference was at- tended by no fewer than 3,000 delegates, who represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations. 999 ENGLAND. 1884-1885. Third Reform BiU. ENGLAND, 1884-1885. It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. . . . To a man the delegates agreed as to the impera- tive necessity of liousehold suffrage being ex- tended to the counties ; and almost to a man they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure be- ing no longer delayed. . . . When Parliament met on the 5tli of the following February ... a measure for 'the enlargement of the occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the United Kingdom ' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech; and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that ' on the first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the bill. So much was the House of Commons occu- pied with affairs in Egypt and the Soudan, how- ever, that it was not till the 29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill through tlie House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000 persons. ... On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates was held in St. James's Hall, London. . . . Mr. John Morley, who pre- sided, used some words respecting the House that had rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, ' that no power on earth can separate hence- forth the question of mending the House of Com- mons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at Birmingham, refen'ed to the Lords as ' many of them the spawn of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark ages of our country ' ; and his colleague, Mr. Chamber- lain, used even bolder words: ' During the last one hundred years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popu- lar freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal ; and during that time it has pro- tected every abuse and sheltered every privilege. . . . It is irresponsible without independence, ob- stinate without courage, arbitrary without judg- ment, and arrogant without knowledge.' . . . In very many instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time, and to con- centrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on one final struggle for the Reform (or, prefer- ably, the extinction) of the Upper House. " But Mr. Gladstone gave no encouragement to this in- clination of his party. The outcome of the agi- tation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time in the House of Commons, in Novem- ber, 1884, and by the Lords soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a separate bill was framed and intro- duced while the Franchise Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885. — W. Heaton, The Three Reforms of Parliaimiit, ch. 6. — -"In regai'd to electoral districts, the equalization, in other words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having about the same number of in- habitants, is carried out. For this purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are divested of the right of electing a separate mem- ber; 36 towns, with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into ' electoral districts ' of about the like population, to elect one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly, carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized towns, which have been left with two members. The County of York forms, for example, 26 elec- toral districts ; Liverpool 9. To sum up, the re- sult stands thus: — the counties choose 253 mem- bers (formerly 187), the towns 287 (formerly 397). The average population of the county electoral districts is now 52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town electoral districts 52, 700 (formerly 41, 200). . . . The number of the newly-enfrancliised is supposed, according to an average estimate, to be 2,000,000."— Dr. R. Gneist, The English Parliament in its Trarisfor- matiom, cJt. 9. Also in : J. Murdoch, Hist, of Const. Reform in Gt. Britain and Ireland, pp. 277-398. — H. Jephson, The Platform, ch. 23 {v. 2). Tlie following is the text of the "Third Re- form Act," which is entitled "The Representa- tion of the People Act, 1884 " : An Act to amend the Law relating to the Rep- resentation of the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.] Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : 1. This Act may be cited as the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1884. 2. A uniform household franchise and a uni- form lodger franchise at elections shall be estab- lished in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man possessed of a household qualification or a lodger qualifi- cation shall, if the qualifying premises be situate in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough. 3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling- house by virtue of any oflSce, service, or employ- ment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Repre- sentation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant. 4. Subject to the saving in this Act for exist- ing voters, the following provisions shall have effect with reference to elections: (1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownersliip of any rentcharge ex- cept the owner of the whole of the tithe rent- cliarge of a rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or bene- fice to whicli an apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes. (2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if his interest is suflicient to confer a qualification as a voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be en- titled (in the like cases and subject to the like 1000 ENGLAND, 1884-1885, Third Reform Bill. ENGLAND, 1884-1885. conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election. Provided that where such owners have derived their interest by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or will, or where they occupy the land or tene- ment, and are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient to confer on him a qualitication as a voter shall be entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like con- ditions as if he were sole owner) to be regis- tered as a voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be as- certained by the division of the total value of the laud or tenement equally among the whole of such owners. 5. Every man occupying any land or tene- ment in a county or borough in the United King- dom of a clear yearly value of not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough in respect of such occupation subject to the like conditions respec- tively as a man is, at the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for such borough in respect of the borough occu- pation franchise. 6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a county in respect of the occu- pation of any dwelling-house, lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough. 7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a house- hold qualification " means, as respects England and Ireland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in England and to counties and bor- oughs in Ireland. (2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended and applied to Ire- land, the following dates shall be substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for tlie fifteenth day of July, the first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the first day of January for the fifth day of January. (3.) The expression "a lodger qualification " means the qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see com- ments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the fourth .section of the Representa- tion of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in England, and the said sec- tion of the Irish Act of 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and twenty-three of the Parliamen- tary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to Ire- land, and for the purpose of such application the reference in tlie said section six to the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the said sec- tion twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Mu- nicipal Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of the Parliamentary Registra- tion Act, 1843, shall be construed to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the reference to the Parliamentary Regis- tration Acts shall be construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the fourteenth day of July for the twenty- fifth day of July, and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the town clerk. (4.) The expression "a household qualifica- tion" means, as respects Scotland, the qualifica- tion enacted by the third section of the Repre- sentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and enactments the expression "dwelling-house " in Scotland means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwel- ling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be substituted for the definition contained in section fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868. (5.) The expression "a lodger qualification " means, as respects Scot- land, the qualification enacted by the fourth section of the Representation of the People (Scot- land) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and en- actments, so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in Scotland. (6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, a^ respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text] ; and, as respects Scotland, the fran- chise enacted by tlie sixth section of the Repre- sentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first section of the Act of the session of the thir- teenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine. (7.) The ex- pression "borough occupation franchise " means, as respects England, the franchise enacted by the twenty-seventh section of the Act of the ses- sion of the second and third years of the reign of King AVilliam the Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this text] ; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the second and third j'ears of the reign of King Wil- liam the Fourth, chapter sixty -five; and as re- spects Ireland the franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868. (8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county occupation franchise or borough occupation franchise other than the sectious in 1001 ENGLAND, 1884-1885. Third Reform Bill. ENGLAND, 1884-1885. this Act in that behalf mentioned shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise in this Act mentioned. 8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Repre- sentation of the People Acts " means the enact- ments for tlie time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of the Registration Acts as defined by this Act. (2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, re- lating to the registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for counties and boroughs, in- clusive of the Rating Acts as defined by this Act. (3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People Acts" and "the Registration Acts" re- spectively, where used in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the LTnited Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the enactments for the time being in force in that part. (4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registra- tion of persons entitled to vote in boroughs in England in respect of a household or a lodger qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in re- spect of a lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary al- terations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to boroughs. (5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend respectively to the re- gistration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the house- hold qualification conferred by this Act. (6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in burghs, including the pro- visions relating to dates, shall, with the neces- sary variations, and with the necessary altera- tions of notices and other forms, extend and apply to counties as well as to burghs ; and the enactments of the said Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall, so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be repealed: Provided that in coun- ties the valuation rolls, registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in parishes as heretofore. 9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts " means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland re- spectively, relating to the placing of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other enact- ments relating to rating in so far as they are auxiliary to or deal with the registration of per- sons entitled to vote at elections ; and the expres- sion "the Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts for the time being in force in that part. (2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, ■nhether any man, other than the owner or other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such dwelling-house, and to en- ter in the rate book the name of every man so entitled, and the situation or description of the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be added to the rate book. (3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in the management of such hereditament, the requisition specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that the form in that notice be accurately filled up and returned to the overseers within twenty -one days after such service ; and if any such person or agent on whom such requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on sum- mary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach of duty in the execution of the Re- gistration Acts, and shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding forty shillings for each default. (4.) The notice under this sec- tion may be served in manner provided by the Representation of the People Acts with respect to the service on occupiers of notice of non-pay- ment of rates, and, where a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local officer having the superintendence or control of such hereditament. (5. ) In the application of this sec- tion to Scotland the expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section inhab- its a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, ser- vice, or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation roll any rent or value against the name of such man as applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man by rea- son of such entry become liable to be rated in respect of such dwelling-house. (6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety -one, and section fifteen of the Represen- tation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the parochial board of any parish, or any other rat- ing authority entitled to impose assessments ac- cording to the valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in the valuation roll. (7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall never- theless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote under the same conditions under which 1002 ENGLAND, 1884-1885. Quatifications of the Suffrage. ENGLAND, 1884-1885. an occupier of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of the Poor Rate Assess- ment and Collection Act, 1869, and the Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule mentioned. (8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Representa- tion of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occu- pier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and another person is rated or liable to be rated for such dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant occupier ; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts amend- ing the same referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid. (9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwelling-house belong- ing to or being occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other ground of exemptiou, such person shall not be disentitled to be regis- tered as a voter, and to vote by reason only that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof. 10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any per- son (who at the date of the passing of this Act is registered in respect of any qualification to vote for any county or borough), of his right to be from time to time registered and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such quali- fication in like manner as if this Act had not passed. Provided that where a man is so regis- tered in respect of the county or borough occu- pation franchise by virtue of a qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act shall confer on any man who is sub- ject to any legal incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any right to be registered as a voter or to vote. II. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the expressions "elec- tion," "county," and "borough," and other ex- pressions in this Act and in the enactments ap- plied by this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts. Provided that in this Act and the said enactments — The expression "over- seers" Includes assessors, guardians, clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known, who perform duties in relation to rating or to the registration of voters similar to those performed in relation to such matters by over- seers in England. The expression ' ' rentcharge " Includes a fee farm rent, a feu duty in Scotland,, a rent seek, a chief rent, a rent of assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house separately occupied for the pur- pose of any trade, business, or profession, and that expression, and also the expression "here- ditament " when used in this Act, in Scotland in- cludes "lands and heritages. " The exprepiona "joint tenants " and "tenants in common " shall include "pro indiviso proprietors." The ex- pression "clear yearly value " as applied to any- land or tenement means in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and In Ireland the net annual value at which the occu- pier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being, under the Act of the session of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same. 12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in substitution for the franchises con- ferred by the enactments mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be re- pealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned except in sO' far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act ; and the Acts mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule shall be re- pealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so- far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and except in so far as the enactments- so repealed contain conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise enacted by this Act. 13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the first day of January one thou- sand eight hundred and eighty -five: Provided that the register of voters in any county or bor- ough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned year shall not come into force until the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and until that day the previous regis- ter of voters shall continue in force. The following comments upon the foregoing^ act afford explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of its provisions: " The introduction of the household franchise into counties is the main work of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1884. . . . The county household franchise is . . . made identical with the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the definition of the one household franchise now established in^ both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The third section of the Act in ques- tion provides that ' Every man shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add "or for a county or division of a county"] who is qualified as follows:— (l.> Is of full age and not subject to any legal in- capacity ; (3.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve calendar months been an inhabi- tant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within a county or division of a county]; (3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary 1U03 ENGLAND, 1884-1885. Suj^rage Qualifications, ENGLAND, 1884^188a. occupier in respect of the premises so occupied by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of such prem- ises; and, (4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other or- dinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates that have been payable by him in respect of the said premises up to the preceding 5th day of January : Provided that no man shall under this section be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling house. . . . The lodger franchise was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage upon lodgers who, being of full age and not sub- ject to any legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough lodgings ' of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of £10 or upwards ' for twelve months preceding the last day of July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain limitations or restrictions were im- posed on the lodger franchise; but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the 6th section of which considerably enlarged the fran- chise by enacting that: — (1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any j'ear or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that j'ear or either of those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings. (2.) For the purpose of qualifjiug a lodger to vote the occu- pation in immediate succession of different lodg- ings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupa- tion of the same lodgings. (3.) Wliere lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and subject to the condi- tions of the Representation of the People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings. . . . Until the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no house- holder was qualified to vote unless he not only occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was either ex- pressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held not to be created. The consequence was that a large number of persons who as offi- cials, as employes, or as servants are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In future such persons will ... be entitled to vote as inhabitant occupiers and ten- ants (under Section 3 of the recent Act), notwith- standing that they occupy their dwelling houses ' by virtue of any office, service or employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a subor- dinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom ' such man serves in such office, service or employment,' . . . Persons seised of (i. e. , owning) an estate of inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of the county in which the estate is situ- ated. This is the class of electors generally known as ' forty shilling freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s. freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act, however, restricted the county freehold franchise by draw- ing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheri- tance, and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of the first class of freeholds were left in possession of their former rights (except when the property is situated within a Parlia- mentary borough), the owners of the latter were subjected to a variety of conditions and restric- tions. . . . Before the passing of the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance, pro- vided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give 40s. for each owner. But . . . this right is materially qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. . . . Persons seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled to a county vote, provided that they (1) actually and bonS fide occupy the premises, or (2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or (3) have ac- quired the property after the date by marriage, marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or office. . . . Persons seised of an es- tate for life or lives or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards : This quali- fication is not confined to the ownership of free- hold lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31 Vict., c. 103, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their property is of the an- nual value of £5. . . . The electoral qualifica- tions in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3). The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the County franchises are as follows: — 1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account for as a con- dition of his right. 2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of £10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is in actual personal occupancy of the land. 3. Occupiers of land, &c., of the clear yearly value of £10. 4. Householders. 5. Lodg- ers. 6. The service franchise. Borough fran- chises. — 1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10. 2. Householdere. 3. Lodg- ers. 4. The service franchise. The qualification for these franchises is in all material respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales. . . . The Acts relating to 1004 ENGLAND, 1884-1885. Gladstone and Salisbury. ENGLAND, 1885-1886. the franchise in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV. , c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict. , c. 69, the representation of the Peo- ple (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read together they give the following qualifications : — County franchises. — 1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of free- holds for lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual value of £5. 3, Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of £10. 3. Leaseholders of various terras and value. 4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear an- nual value of £10. 5. Householders. 6. The lodger franchise. 7. The service franchise. Bor- ough franchises. — 1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of £10. 3. House- holders. ... 3. Lodgers. 4. The service fran- chise. 5. Freemen in certain boroughs. . . . All the franchises we have described . . . are subject to this condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal incapacity to become or act as elector. . . . No alien unless certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot, nor any person in such a state of drunk- enness as to be incapable — is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country, including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are disqualified from voting either generally or for constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of the police the disqualification con- tinues for six months after an officer has left the force. . . . Persons are disqualified who are con- victed of treason or treason-felony, for which the sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months, until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the election of any member to serve in Parlia- ment. A returning officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months next previous to the last day of July in such year received parochial re- lief or other alms which by the law of Parlia- ment disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for reward or payment are dis- qualified from voting thereat although they may be on the register. . . . The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, disqualifies a variety of offenders." — W. A. Holdsworth, The New Reform Act. pp. 20-SQ. A. D. 1884-1885.— Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon. See Egypt : A. D. 1884-1885. A. D. 1884-1895. — Acquisitions in Africa. See Africa : A. D. 1884-1885, and after. A. D. 1885.— The fall of the Gladstone gov- ernment. — The brief first Ministry of Lord Sal- isbury. — "Almost simultaneously with the as- sembling of Parliament [February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon [see Egypt: A. D. 1884-1885]. These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation throughout the country, and the Government was severely condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr. Glad- stone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to the situation, and announced that it was necessary to overthrow the Mahdi at Khar toum, to renew operations against Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation was issued calling out the re- serves. Sir Stafford Northcote initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion aflSrming that the risks and sacrifices which the Govern- ment appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Ministry, but expressing regret at its de- cision to continue the conflict with the Mahdi. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion and amendment. Observing that it was impossi- ble to give rigid pledges as to the future, he ap- pealed to the Liberal party, if they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the Gov- ernment, to strengthen their hands by an unmis- takable vote of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the votes being 303 in their favour with 388 against; but many of those who supported the Government had also voted for the amendment by Mr. Morley. . . . Finan- cial questions were extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the current year — including the vote of credit — of no less than £100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's pro- posals was one to levy upon laud an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on personal property. There was also an augmentation of the spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions, but they were not regarded as suflicient, and on the Monday after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. . . . Mr. Gladstone stated at the close of the debate that the Government would resign if defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to 253, and the Ministry went out. . . . Lord Salisbury became Premier. . . . The general election . . . [was] fixed for November 1885." — G. B. Smith, T/ie Prune Ministers of Queen Vic- toria, pp. 373-377. A. D. 1 885-1 886.— The partition of East Africa with Germany. See Africa: A. D. 1884-1891. A. D. 1885-1886. — Mr. Gladstone's return to power. — His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill. — Their defeat. — Division of the Liberal Party. — Lord Salisbury's Min- istry. — "The House of Commons which had been elected in November and December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new constituencies and an enlarged elector- ate had taken all parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help of their Irish 1005 ENGLAND, 1885-1886. Home Rute for Ireland. ENGLAND, 1885-1886. allies, successful in the towns beyond all their hopes ; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties ; and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. . . . The Englisli repre- sentation — exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for Liverpool — gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English constituencies; which Wales and Scot- land swelled to 106. The Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home Rulers and only 18 were Tories. . . . The new House of Commons was exactly divided be- tween the Liberals on one side and the Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670 members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 349 were Tories, and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. ... It was soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of January 1886, the Government was de- feated on an amendment to the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr, Gladstone was invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief Sec- retary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for Presi- dent of the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March " Mr. Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill ' to amend the provision for the future government of Ire- land ' ; and that on the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr.Trevelyan (Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet, and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of Com- mons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech whicTi lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his plan and the reasons on which they were based. The es- sential conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be placed in jeo- pardy ; the minority must be protected ; the political equality of the three countries must be maintained, and there must be an equitable dis- tribution of Imperial burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made for the special treatment of Ulster — its exclusion from the bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain matters, such as education, for Pro- vincial Councils ; all of which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to be taxed ? The English people would never force on Ireland tax- ation without representation. The taxing power would be in the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against her Magna Charta being tam- pered with; the provision of the Act would therefore only be capable of modification with the concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of the Irish members to the tvpo Houses of Parliament. The Irish legislature would have all the powers which were not specially reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders, though not two Houses. It would be sub- ject to all the prerogatives of the Crown ; it would have nothing to do with Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations ; nor could it modify the Act on which its own authority was based. Contracts, charters, questions of education, re- ligious endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority. Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures, copy- right, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters, were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The composition of the legis- lature was to be first, the 103 members now rep- resenting Ireland with 101, elected by the same constituencies, with the exception of the Univer- sity, with power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Iri.sh people under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be left, but the Viceroy was not to quit oflice with an outgoing government, and no religious disability was to affect his appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their lien on the Consoli- dated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish government, and, like English judges, would hold their office during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial ar- rangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail. He fixed the proportion of Im- perial charges Ireland should pay at one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and Great Britain fourteen parts. Jlore than a mil- lion of duty is paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and this would be practi- cally a contribution towards the Irish revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco manu- factured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill, connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime the op- position to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal party had been rapidly taking form. It was led by Lord Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Henry James, Sir John Lub- bock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney. It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate and bitter. It ended in 1006 ENGLAND, 1885-1886. Home Rule for Ireland. ENGLAND, 1893-1893. the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30 against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever been taken in the House of Com- mons, 657 members being present. The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Lib- erals. The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists. Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of Parliament.^ The elections were adverse to him, resulting in the return to Parliament of members representing the several parties and sections of parties asfollo^ys: Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194, Irish Nationalists 85 — total 279; seceding Liberals 75, Conservatives 316 — total 391. Mr. Glad- stone and his colleagues resigned and a new Min- istry was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord Salisbury's Govern- ment, became organized as a distinct party under the leadership of Lord Hartiugton, and took the name of Liberal Unionists.— P. W. Clayden, JEng- land under the Coalition, ch. 1-6. Also est : H. D. Traill, Tlie Marquis of Salis- bxiry, ch. VZ.— Annual Register, 1885, 1886. A. D. 1885-1888.— Termination of the Fish- ery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.— Renewed controversies with the United States. —The rejected Treaty. See Fisheries, North American: A. D. 18TT-1888. A. D. 1886.— Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Ten- ants' Relief Bill.— The plan of campaign in Ireland. See Ireland : A. D. 1886. A. D. 1886-1893.— The Bering Sea Contro- versy and Arbitration. See United States op Am. : A. D. 1886-1893. A. D. 1890.— Settlement of African questions with Germany.— Cession of Heligoland. See Africa: A. D. 1884-1889. A. D. 1891.— The Free Education Bill. See Education, Modern: European Countries. — England: A. D. 1891. A. D. 1892-1893. — The fourth Gladstone Ministry.— Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.— Its defeat by the Lords.— On the 28th of June, 1893, Parlia- ment was dissolved, having been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 43 in the House of Commons ; but in the representation of England alone there was a majority of 70 re- turned against it. In Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule, and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales, 28 for and 3 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists (opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the counties. As the result of the election. Lord Salisbury and his Ministry resigned August 13, and Mr. Gladstone was summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was announced four days later. Earl Rosebery became Foreign Secretary ; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H. Asquith, Home Secretary ; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in Au- gust, 1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr. Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill pro- vides for a Legislature for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses— the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This Legislature, with certain restrictions, is author- ized to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters ex- clusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish Legis- lature shall not extend to the making of any law respecting the establishment or endowment of re- ligion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any disability or conferring any privi- lege on account of religious belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby private property may be taken without just com- pensation. According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any preroga- tives or other executive power of the Queen the exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and shall in the Queen's name sum- mon, prorogue, and dissolve the Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland is provided for, which ' shall aid and ad- vise in the government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or with- hold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man shall be en- titled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occu- pies any land or tenement of a ratable value of £30. the term of office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to consist of 103 members returned by the Parlia- mentary constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly, unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of this act the public revenue shall be divided into general revenue and special rev- enue, and general revenue shall consist of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion due to Ireland of the hereditary rev- enues of the crown which are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for the customs and excise duties collected in Great Brit- ain on articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the rev- enue collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great Britain ; these annual sums to be determined by a committee appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial Treas- ury. It is also provided that one-third of the general revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of 1007 ENGLAND, 1892-1893. EPHE8U8. six years, at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be devised. The Legisla- ture, in order to meet expenses of the public ser- vice, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. ,The bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease and I that all persons having the right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in coun- cil. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police shall be per- mitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894, and the first election for mem- bers shall be held at such time before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of September — the second reading postponed to a day six months from that date — by the over- whelming vote of 419 to 41. ENGLE.— ENGLISH. See Ajigles and Jdtes; also, England: A. D. 547-633. ENGLISH PALE, The. See Pale, The English. ENGLISH SWEAT, The. See Sweating Sickness. ENGLISHRY.— To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers by the exas- perated English, William the Conqueror ordained that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a heavy penalty. "In con- nexion with this enactment there grew up the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every mur- dered man was presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of ' Englishry ' were made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased. ' Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed, are recorded in the reign of Richard I. , but not later." — T. P. Taswell-Langmead, Eng. Const. Hist., p. 68. ENNISKILLEN, The defence of. See Ike- l.\nd:^A. D. 1688-1689. ENOMOTY, The. — In the Spartan military organization the enomoty ' ' was a small company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given differently at 25, 32, or 36 men, — drilled and practised together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a common oath. Each Enomoty had a separate captain or enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company." — G. Grote, Hist, of Greece, pt. 2, ch. 8. ENRIQUE. See Henry. ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674). See Neth- BRL.VNDS (HoLL.^'D) : A. D. 1674-1678. EORL AND CEORL.— " The modern Eng- lish forms of these words have completely lost their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the Peerage ; the word ' Churl ' has come to be a word of moral reprobation, ir- respective of the rank of the person who is guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the words, ' Eorl ' and ' Ceorl ' — words whose happy jingle causes them to be constantly op- posed to each other — form an exhaustive divi- sion of the free members of the state. The dis- tinction in modem language is most nearly expressed by the words 'Gentle 'and 'Simple.' The ' Ceorl ' is the simple freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no distinc- tion of birth or ofiice marks out from his fel- lows." — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Oonq. of Eng., ch. 3, sect. 2. — See, also, Ethel; and England: A. I). 958. EORMEN STREET. See Ekmyn Street. EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes. See Greece: B. C. 379-371, and 371- 863; also Thebes: B. C. 378. EPEIROS. See Epirds. EPHAH, The.— "The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews], The ephah is considered by Queipo to have been the mea- sure of water contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6. 468 imperial gallons, and to have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was di- vided into six bin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or gomers. 'The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve ephahs. " — H. "W. Chisholm, On the Science of Weighing and Measuring, ch. 2. EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.— The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the gigantic Philistine. — 1 Sam., xvii. EPHESIA, The. See Ionic (Pan-Ionic) Amphiktyony. EPHESUS. — The Ephesian Temple. — "The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river Cayster, wliich falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of the Athenian king, Codrus. . . . With other Ionian cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crffisus, the last of the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Croesus by Cyrus, it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot. Although from that time, dur- ing a period of at least five centuries, to the con- quest by the Romans, the city underwent great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and importance. Tlie Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most attrac- tive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary god- dess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea, which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. . . . During the generations which immediately followed the conquest of Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was within this short period of little more than two centuries that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each 1008 EPHESUS. EPIRUS. time on the same grand scale." — J. T. Wood, Discoveries at Eptiesus, ch. 1. — The excavations which were carried on at Bpliesus by Mr. Wood, for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until 1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above is exceedingly interesting. Ionian conquest and occupation. See Asia Minor: The Greek CoLONrEs. Ancient Commerce. — "The spot on the Asi- atic coast which corresponded most nearly with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provin- cial town. The mild sway of Augustus re- stored it to wealth and eminence, and as the offi- cial capital of the province of Asia, it was reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities. " — C. Merivale, Hist, of the Somans, ch. 40. A. D. 267. — Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana. See Goths: A. D. 258-267. A. D. 431 and 449. — The General Council and the " Robber Synod." See Nestori.vn akd Monopuysite Controversy. EPHETyE.The. — A board of fifty-one judges Instituted by the legislation of Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon the Areopagus. — G. Schomann, Antig. of Greece: The folate, pt. 3, c?i. 3. EPHORS. — "Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece], although our knowledge with regard to them extends no fur- ther than to the fact of their existence ; while the name, which signifies quite generally ' over- seers,' affords room for no conclusion as to their political position or importance. In Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence that no other can be found in any free State with which it can be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain can be ascertained. . . . The following appears to be a probable account: — The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the judicial decision of private disputes, — a function which they continued to exercise in later times, — partly to undertake, as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during their ab- sence in military service, or through some other cause. . . . When the monarchy and the Gerou- sia wished to re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession which should give some security to the people that this power should not be abused to their detriment. This concession consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. . . . The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of the administration, and to remove or pimish whatever they found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public interest." — G. F. SchO- mann, Antig. of Greece: The State, pt. 3, ch. 1, sect. 8. — See, also, Spakta: The Constitution, -%;c. 64 EPHTHALITES, The. See Huns, The White. EPIDAMNUS. See Greece: B. C. 435-432; and KoRKYRA. EPIDII, The. See Britain, Celtic Tribes. EPIGAMIA.— The right of marriage in an- cient Athens. — G. F. SchOmann, Antig. of Greece: The State, pt. 3, ch. 3. EPIGONI, The. See Bosotia. EPIPOL/E. — One of the parts or divisions of the ancient citv of Syracuse, Sicily. EPIROT LEAGUE, The.— "The tempo- rary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros, or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general history. Our immediate business is with the republican government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now became a republic ; of the details of its constitution we know nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal. The Epei- rots formed one political body ; Polybios always speaks of them, like the Achaians and Akarnani- ans, as one people acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the common name of the whole nation." — E. A. Freeman, Hist, of Federal Govt., bk. 4, sect. 1. EPIRUS. — THE EPIROTS. — " Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western Greece] we find small nations or tribes not con- sidered as Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards, under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies, properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied by the Greeks as their comprehen- sive denomination to designate all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the principal were — the Chaoni- ans, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as mari- time along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokerau- nian mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the Ambrakian Gulf. . . . Among these various tribes it is diflicult to dis- criminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hel- lenic; for Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as Hellenic, — and the oracle of Dodona, as well as the Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as barbaric. . . . Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its cat- tle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were celebrated throughout all antiquity : and its population then, as now, found divided vil- lage residence the most suitable to their means and occupations. . . . Both the Chaonians and Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no kings : there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however, had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the year 400 1009. EPIRUS. EQUESTRIAN ORDER. B. 0."— G. Grote, Hist, of Greece, pt. 3, eh. 34.— The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus. Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see Rome: B. C. 382-375) is one of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious and energetic of the dynasty (see Macedonl\: B. C. 397-380); Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome. Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the imperial Comnenian family; "was conquered by the Turks in 1466 and is now represented by tlie southern half of the province of Turkey, called Albania. — See, also, ffiNOTRIANS. A. D. 1204-1350. — The Greek Despotat. — From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, over- thrown by the Crusaders and the Venetians in 1304, " that portion . . . situated to the west of the range of Hndus was saved from feudal dom- ination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III. After the conquest of Constanti- nople, he escaped into Epirus, where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some influ- ence ; and assuming the direction of the adminis- tration of the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a considerable military f oroe, and established the seat of his authority gen- erally at loannina or Arta. . . . History has un- fortunately preserved very little information con- cerning tlie organisation and social condition of the different classes and races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus. Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. . . . They all assumed the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot, by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek emperor. Michael I, the founder of the des- potat, distinguished himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He extended his au- thority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia, and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually independent, he acknowledged Theo- dore I. (Laskaris), [at Nicaea] as the lawful em- peror of the East. " The able and unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1232), and assumed the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at Nicsea, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of Thessalonica ^as short lived. Its capital was taken by the emperor of Nicsea, in 1334, and Michael's son John, then reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and distracted by wars and domestic con- flicts. In 1350 its remaining territory was occu- pied by the king of Servia, and finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks. — G. Finlay, Hist, of Greece from its Conquest by tlie Crusaders, ch. 6. Also in: Sir J. E. Tennent, Hist, of Modern Oreece, ch. 3. Modern History. See Albanians. EPISCOPAL CHURCH. See Church of England. EPISTATES.— The presiding officer of the ancient Athenian council and popular assembly. EPONYM.— EPONYMUS. — The name- giver, — the name-giving hero of primitive myths, in which tribes and races of people set before themselves, partly by tradition, partly by imagi- nation, an heroic personage who is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of their name. EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA. See AssTRiA. Epontm Canon op. EPPING FOREST. -Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex, England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subse- quently, when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still later, when further re- trenched, it took the name of Epping, from a town that is embraced in it. It is still quite large, and within recent years it has been for- mally declared by the Queen ' ' a people's park. " — J. C. Brown, Forests of Eng. EPULONES, The.— "The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the administration of the sacred festivals." — C. Merivale, Hist, of tlie Romans, ch. 31. EQUADOR. See Ecuador. EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY. See New York: A. D. 1835-1837. EQUESTRIAN ORDER, Roman.— "The selection of the burgess cavalry was vested in the censors. It was, no doubt, the duty of these to make the selection on purely military grounds, and at their musters to insist that all horsemen incapacitated by age or otherwise, or at all un- serviceable, should surrender their public horse ; but it was not easy to hinder them from looking to noble birth more than to capacity, and from allowing men of standing, who were once ad- mitted, senators particularly, to retain their horse beyond the proper time. Accordingly it became the practical rule for the senators to vote in the eighteen equestrian centuries, and the other places in these were assigned chiefly to the younger men of the nobility. The military sys- tem, of course, suffered from this, not so much through the unfitness for effective service of no small part of the legionary cavalry, as through the destruction of military equality to which the change gave rise; the noble youth more and more withdrew from serving in the infantry, and the legionary cavalry became a close aristocratic corps." — T. Mommsen, Hist, of Home, bk. 3, ch. 11. — " Theeighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time . . . lost their original military charac- ter and remained only as a voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the char- acter of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the cavalry service passed over to the richer citi- zens not included in the senatorial families, that a new class of Roman citizens began gradually to be formed, distinct from the nobility proper and from the mass of the people, and designated as the equestrian order." — W. Ihne, Hist, of Rome, bk. 7, ch. 1.— The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 133, which fixed its membership by a census, and transferred to it the judicial functions previously exercised by the senators only. It formed a kind of monetary aristocracy. — Tlie same, bk. 7, ch. 6. EQUITY. See Law, Equity. 1010 ERA. ERFURT. ERA, Christian. — "Unfortunately for ancient C'lironology, there was no one fixed or univer- sally established Era. Different countries recli- oned by different eras, whose number is embar- rassing, and their commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled to each other; and it was not until A. D. 533 that the Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of Justinian. . . . Dionys- ius began his era with the year of our Lord's incarnation and nativity, in U. C. 753, of the Varronian Computation, or the 45th of the Julian Era. And at an earlier period, Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who flourished under the Em- peror Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the incar- nation in the same year. IJut by some mistake, or misconception of his meaning, Bede, who lived in the next century after Dionysius, adopted his year of the Nativity, U. C. 753, yet began the Vulgar Era, which he first introduced, the year after, and made it commence Jan. 1, U. C. 754, which was an alteration for the worse, as making the Christian Era recede a year further from the true year of the Nativity. The Vulgar Era began to prevail in the West about the time of Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II. A. D. 730. . . . But it was not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV. A. D. 1431, who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers. . . . Dionysius was led to date the year of the Nativ- ity, ij. C. 753, from the Evangelist Luke's ac- count that John the Baptist began his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was be- ginning to be about 30 years of age.' Luke iii. 1-23. . . . But this date of the Nativity is at variance with Matthew's account, that Christ was born before Herod's death ; which followed shortly after his massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. . . . Christ's birth, therefore, could not have been earlier than U. C. 748, nor later than U. C. 749. And if we assume the latter year, as most conformable to the whole tenor of Sacred History, with Chrysostom, Petavius, Prideaux, Playfair, &c., this would give Christ's age at his baptism, about 34 years ; contrary to Luke's account." — W. Hales' Neio Analysis of Chronology, v. 1, bk. 1. — In a subsequent table, Mr. Hales gives the results of the computations made by different chronologists, ancient and modern, to fix the true year of the Nativity, as accommodated to what is called "the vulgar," or popularly accepted. Christian Era. The range is through no less than ten years, from B. C. 7 to A. D. 3. His own conclusion, supported by Prideau.x and Playfair, is in favor of the year B. C. 5. Somewhat more commonly at the present time, it is put at B. C. 4. — See, also, Jews: B. C. 8— A. D. 1. ERA, French Revolutionary. See France: A. D. 1793 (September — No\^mber), and 1793 (October). ERA, Gregorian. See Calendar, Gregorian. ERA, Jalalaean. See Turks (The Skljuk): A. D. 1073^1093. ERA, Julian. See Calendar, Julian. ERA, Mahometan, or Era of the Hegira. — " The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, accord- ing to the civil calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 633, the day of the flight of Ma- homet from Mecca to Medina, which is the date of the Mahometans; but astronomers and some historians assign it to the preceding day, viz., Thursday, the 15th of July ; an important fact to be borne in mind when perusing Arabian writers. The years of the Hegira are lunar years, and con- tain twelve months, each commencing with the new moon ; a practice which necessarily leads to great confusion and uncertainty, inasmuch as every year must begin considerably earlier in the season than the preceding. In chronology and historj', however, and in dating their public in- struments, the Turks use months which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days, except- ing the last month, which, in intercalary years, contains thirty days. . . . The years of the Hegira are divided into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are termed common years, of 354 days each ; and the eleven others intercalary, or abundant, from their consisting of one day more: these are the 3d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 26th and 39th. To ascertain whether any given year be intercalary or not divide it by 30 ; and if either of the above num- bers remain, the year is one of 355 days." — Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History. — See, also, Mahometan Conquest : A. D. 609-633. ERA, Spanish. — "The Spanish era dates from 38 B. C. (A. U. 716) and is supposed to mark some important epoch in the organization of the province by the Romans. It may coincide with the campaign of Calvinus, which is only known to us from a notice in the Fasti Triumphales. . . . The Spanish era was preserved in Aragon tUl 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415." — C. Merivale, Hist, of the Romans, ch. 34, note. ERA OF DIOCLETIAN, or Era of Mar- tyrs. See Ro.me: A. D. 192-284. ERA OF GOOD FEELING. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1821-1834, ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME. See Rome: B. C. 7.53. ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS. See Olym- piads, Era of the. ERANL- — Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times. — G. F. SchOmann, Antiq. ofG-reece : The State, pt. 3, ch. 3. ERASTIANISM.— A doctrine which "re- ceived its name from Thomas Erastus, a German physician of the 16th century, contemporary with Luther. The work in which he delivered his theory and reasonings on the subject is entitled ' De Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica. ' . . . The Erastians . . . held that religion is an affair be- tween man and his creator, in which no other man or society of men was entitled to interpose. . . . Proceeding on this ground, they maintained that every man calling himself a Christian has a right to make resort to any Christian place of worship, and partake in all its ordinances. Sim- ple as this idea is. it strikes at the root of all priestcraft." — W. Godwin, Hist, of the Common- wealth, V. 1, c7i. 13. ERCTE, Mount, Hamilcar on. See Punic War, The First. — See, also, Eryx. ERDINI, The. See Ireland, Tribes of early Celtic Inhabitants. EREMITES OF ST. FRANCIS. See Minims. ERETRIA. See Chalcis and Eretria. ERFURT, Imperial Conference and Treaty of. See France: A. D. 1808 (September- October). 1011 ERECTHEION. ESPINOSA. ERECTHEION AT ATHENS, The.— "At a very early period there was, opposite the long northern side of the Parthenon, a temple which, according to Herodot, was dedicated jointly to Athene Polias and the Attic hero, Erec- theus. . . . This temple was destroyed by fire while the Persians held the city. Not unlikely the rebuilding of the Erectheion was begun by Perikles together with that of the other destroyed temples of the Akropolis ; but as it was not fin- ished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his works. . . . This temple was re- nowned amongst the ancients as one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence, and seems to have remained almost intact down to the time of the Turks. The siege of Athens by the Venetians In 1687 seems to have been fatal to the Erec- theion, as it was to the Parthenon." — E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the 0-reeks, sect. 14. — See, also, Acropolis of Athens. ERIC, King of Denmark, Sweden and Nor- way, A. D. 1413-1439 Eric Blodaexe, King of Norway, A. D. 934-940 Eric I., King of Denmark, A. D. 850-854 Eric I. (called Saint), King of Sweden, A. D. 1155-1161 Eric II., King of Denmark, A. D. 8.54-883 Eric II., King of Norway, A. D. 1280-1299 Eric II. (Knutsson), King of Sweden, A. D. 1210-1216 Eric III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1095-1103 Eric III. (called The Stam- merer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1223-1250 Eric IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1134-1137. ...Eric v.. King of Denmark, A. D. 1137- 1147 Eric VI., King of Denmark, A, D. 1241-1250 Eric VII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1359-1286 Eric VIII., King of Den- mark, A. D. 1286-1319 Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568. ERICSSON, John.— Invention and con- struction of the Monitor. See United St.^tes OF Am. : A. D. 1862 (March). ERIE, The City of: A. D. 1735.— Site oc- cupied by the French. See Canada: A. D. 1700-1735. _ ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1764-1791.— Origin.— Four years after the British conquest of Canada, in 1764, Colonel John Bradstreet built a block- house and stockade near the site of the later Fort Erie, which was not constructed until 1791. When war with the United States broke out, in 1812, the British considered the new fort unten- able, or unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May, 1813. — C. K. Remington, Old Fort Erie. A. D. 1814.— The siege and the destruction. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1814 (July — September). A. D. 1866. — The Fenian invasion. See Can- ada; A. D. 1866-1871. ERIE, Lake : The Indian name. See Niag- ara: The Name. &c. A. D. 1679. — Navigated by La Satle. See Canada: A. D. 1669-1687. A. D. 1813. — Perry's naval victory. See United States of Am. : A. D. 1812-1813. ERIE CANAL, Construction of the. See New York: A. D. 1817-1825. ERIES, The. See American Aborigines: Hurons, &c., and iRoquois Contederact: Thbir conquests. ERIN. See Ireland. ERITREA. The name given in 1890 to a strip of territory acquired by Italy on the Afri- can coast of the Red Sea, bordering on Nubia and Abyssinia. ERMANRIC, The empire of. See Goths (OsTKociOTHS); A. D. 3.50-375; and 376. ERMYN STREET.— A corruption of Eor- men street, the Saxon name of one of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to Lincoln. See Roman Roads in Britain. ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY. See Saxony: A. D. 1180-1558. ERPEDITANI, The. See Ireland, Tribes OF EARLY Celtic inhabitants. ERTANG, The.— The sacred book of the Manicheans. See M.^nicheans. ERYTHR.ib j ugation of the Germans ; and the dissensions of their states and princes, which peace was not slow in developing, attracted no Roman emissa- ries to the barbarian camps, and rarely led the legions beyond the frontier, which was now al- lowed to recede finally to the Rhine." — C. Meri- vale, Hist, of the Somans, ch. 42. Also IN ; T. Mommsen, Hist, of Rome, bk. 8, ch. 1. — T. Smith, Armimus, pt. 1, ch. 7. 3d Century. — Beginning of the "Wandering of the Nations." — " Towards the middle of the third century, ... a change becomes perceptible in the relations and attitude of the German peoples. Many of the nations, which have been celebrated in the annals of the classical writers, disappear silently from history ; new races, new combinations and confederacies start into life, and the names which have achieved an imperisha- ble notoriety from their connection with the long decay and the overthrow of the Roman Empire, come forward, and still survive. On the soil whereon the Sigambri, Marsi, Chauci, and Che- rusci had struggled to preserve a rude indepen- dence, Franks and Saxons lived free and formid- able; Alemanni were gathered along the foot of the Roman wall which connected the Danube with the Rhine, and had, hitherto, preserved in- violate the Agri decumates ; while eastern Ger- many, allured by the hope of spoil, or impelled by external pressure, precipitated itself under the collective term of Goths upon the shrinking settlements of the Dacia and the Danube. The new appellations which appear in western Ger- many in the third century have not unnaturally given rise to the presumption that unknown peoples had penetrated through the land, and overpowered the ancient tribes, and national vanity has contributed to the delusion. As the Burgundians . . . were flattered by being told they were descendants of Roman colonists, so the barbarian writers of a later period busied their imaginations in the solitude of monastic life to enhance the glory of their countrymen, by the invention of what their inkling of classical knowledge led them to imagine a more illustrious origin. . . . Fictions like these may be referred to as an index of the time wlien the young bar- barian spirit, eager after fame, and incapable of balancing probabilities, first gloated over the marvels of classical literature, though its refined and delicate beauties eluded their grosser taste ; but they require no critical examination ; there are no grounds for believing that Franks, Saxons, or Alemanni, were other than the original inhabi- tants of the country, though there is a natural difliculty arising from the want of written con- temporary evidence in tracing the transition, and determining the tribes of which the new con- federacies were formed. At the same time, though no immigration of strangers was pos- sible, a movement of a particular tribe was not unfrequent. The constant internal dissensions of the Germans, combined with their spirit of warlike enterprise, led to frequent domestic wars; and the vanquished sometimes chose rather to seek an asylum far from their native soil, where they might live in freedom, than continue as bondmen or tributaries to the conqueror. Of such a nature were the wanderings of the Usipites and Tcuch- teri [Tenchteri] in Cfesar's time, the removal of the Ubii from Nassau to the neighbourhood of Coin and Xanthen; and to this must be ascribed the appearance of the Burgundians, who had dwelt beyond the Oder, in the vicinity of the Main and the Necker. Another class of national emigra- tions, were those which implied a final abaiuion- ment of the native Germany with the object of 1464 GERMANY, 3D CENTURY. Wandering of the Nations. GERMANY, A. D. 481-768. seeking a new settlement among the possessions of tlie sinking empire. Those of the Goths, Van- dals, Alans, Sueves, the second movement of the Burgundians, may be included in this categorj' ; the invasions of the Franks, Aleraanni, and Sax- ons, on the contrary, cannot be called national emigrations, for they never abandoned, with their families, their original birthplace ; their outwan- derings, like the emigrations of the present day, were partial; their occupation of the enemy's territory was, in character, military and progres- sive; and, with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, their connection with the original stock was never interrupted. In all the migrations of German peoples spoken of from Csesar downwards, the numbers of the emigrants appear to be enormously exaggerated. The Usipites and Teuohteri are estimated by CiEsar at 430,000 souls. How could such a multitude find nourishment during a three years' wander- ing? If 80,000 Burgundian Wehrmen came to the Rhine to the assistance of Valentinian, as Cassiodorius, Jerome, and other chroniclers state, the numbers of the whole nation must have ap- proached 400,000, and it is impossible to believe that such a mass could obtain support in the narrow district lying between the Alemanni, the Hermunduri, and the Chatti. In other cases, vague expressions, and still more the wonderful achievements of the Germans in the course of their emigrations, have led to the supposition of enormous numbers ; but Germany could not find nourishment for the multitudes which have been ascribed to it. Corn at that period was little cultivated; it was not the food of the people, whose chief support was flesh. . . . The con- quests of the barbarians may be ascribed as much to the weakness of their adversaries, to their want of energy and union, as to their own strength. There was, in fact, no enemy to meet them in the field ; and their domination was, at least, as acceptable to the provincial inhabitants as that of the imbecile, but rapacious ministers of the Roman government. ... It was not the lust of wandering, but the influence of external circumstances which brought them to the vicin- ity of the Danube : at first the aggressions of the Romans, then the pressure of the Huns and the Sclavonic tribes. The whole intercourse of Ger- many with Rome must be considered as one long war, which began with the invasion of Csesar; which, long restrained by the superior power of the enemy, warmed with his growing weakness, and only ended with the extinction of the Roman name. The wars of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, were only a continuance of the ancient hostility. There might be partial truce, or occa- sional intermission ; some tribes might be almost extirpated by the sword ; some, for a time, bought off by money ; but Rome was the universal enemy, and much of the internal restlessness of the Germans was no more than the natural move- ment towards the hostile borders. As the inva- sion of northern Germany gave rise to the first great northern union, so the conquest of Dacia brought Goths from the Vistula to the south, while the erection of the giant wall naturally gathered the Suevic tribes along its limits, only waiting for the opportunity to break through. Step by step this battle of centuries was fought ; from the time of Caracalla the flood turned, wave followed wave like the encroaching tide, and the ancient landmarks receded bit by bit, till Rome itself was buried beneath the waters. . . . Three great confederacies of German tribes, more or less united by birth, position, interest, or lan- guage, may be discerned, during this period, in immediate contact with the Romans — the Ale- raanni, the Goths, and the Pranks. A fourth, the Saxons, was chiefly known from its maritime voyages off the coast of Gaul and Britain. There were also many independent peoples which can- not be enumerated among any of the political confederacies, but which acted for themselves, and pursued their individual ends: such were the Burgundians, the Alans, the Vandals, and the LomlDards." — T. Smith, Arminius, pt. 2, ch. 1. Also IK: R. G. 'La,t\ia.ia,NationaUties of Europe, V. 3, ch. 21. — See, also, Ai,emanni; Marcomanni; QcADi; Goths; Gepid^; Saxons; Angles, Franks; Burgundians; Vandals; Suevi; Lom- bards; and, also. Appendix A, vol. 5. A. D. 277. — Invasion by Probus. — The vigor- ous emperor Probus, who, in the year 2T7, drove from Gaul the swarms of invaders that had rav- aged the unhappy province with impunity for two years past, then crossed the Rhine and har- ried the country of the marauders, as far as the Elbe and the Neckar. " Germany, exhausted by the ill success of the last emigration, was aston- ished by his presence. Nine of the most consid- erable princes repaired to his camp and fell pros- trate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by the Germans as it pleased the con- queror to dictate. " Probus then caused a stone wall, strengthened at intervals with towers, to be built from the Danube, near Neustadt and Ratisbou, to Wimpfen on the Neckar, and thence to the Rhine, for the protection of the settlers of the " Agri Decumates." But the wall was thrown down, a few years afterwards, by the Alemanni. — E. Gibbon, Decline and Pall of the Boman Em- pire, ch. 12. Sth Century. — Conversion of the Franks. See Ciiristianity: A. D. 496-800. A. D. 481-768. — Acquisition of supremacy by the Franks. — The original dominions of Clovis, or Chlodwig — with whose reign the career of the Franks as a consolidated people began — cor- responded nearly to the modern kingdom of Bel- gium. His first conquests were from the Romans, in the neighboring parts of Gaul, and when those were finished, " the king of the Franks began to look round upon the other German nations settled upon its soil, with a view to the further exten- sion of his power. A quarrel with the Alemanni supplied the first opportunity for the gratification of his ambition. For more than a century the Alemanni had been in undisturbed possession of Alsace, and the adjoining districts; Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Strasburg, Basel, Constanz, Bre- genz, lay within their territory. . . . The Vose- gen range was a bulwark on the side of Gaul, waste lands separated them from the Burgun- dians, who were settled about the Jura and in the south-west part of Helvetia, and the Moselle di- vided them from the Ripuarian Franks. It is un- known whether they formed a state distinct from their brethren on the right of the Rhine ; prob- ably such was the case, for the Alemanni, at all times, were divided into separate tribes, between which, however, was generally a common union ; nor is it certain whether the Alsatian Alemanni were under one or several Adelings ; a single king is mentioned as having fallen in the battle with Chlodwig, who may have been merely an elected 1466 GERMANY, A. D. 481-768. The Franks. GERMANY, A. D. 481-768. military leader. Equally obscure is the cause of their war with Chlodwig, though it has been assumed, perhaps too hastily, by all recent his- torians, that the Frank king became involved in it as an ally of the Ripuarians. The Ripuarian Franks were settled, as the name imports, upon the banks of the Rhine, from the Moselle down- wards ; their chief seat was the city of Cologne. It is probable that they consisted of the remains of the ancient Ubii, strengthened by the adven- turers who crossed over on the iirst invasion, and the name implies that they were regarded by the Romans as a kind of limitanean soldiery. For, in the common parlance of the Romans of that period, the tract of land lying along the Rhine was called Ripa, in an absolute sense, and even the river itself was not unfrequently denominated by the same title. Ripuarii are Ripa-wehren, Hreop, or Hrepa-wehren, defenders of the shore. About the close of the iif th century these Ripuarii were under the government of a king, named Sigebert, usually called ' the lance. ' The story told by modern writers is, that this Sigebert, hav- ing fallen into dispute with the Alemanni, called upon Chlodwig for assistance, a call which the young king willingly listened to. The Alemanni had invaded the Ripuarian territory, and ad- vanced within a short distance of Cologne, when Chlodwig and his Franks joined the Ripuarii; a battle took place at Zlilpich, about twenty -two English miles from Cologne, which, after a fierce struggle, ended in the defeat of the Alemanni. . . . Chlodwig was following up his victory over the Alemanni, perhaps with unnecessary feroci- ty, when he was stopped in his course by a flatter- ing embassy from the great Theodorich. Many of the Alemanni had submitted, after the death of their chief, on the field of battle. ' Spare us,' they cried, ' for we are now thy people ! ' but there were many who, abhorring the Frank yoke, fled towards the south, and threw themselves under the protection of the Ostrogothic king, who had possessed himself of the ancient Rhsetia and Vindelicia." — T. Smith, Arminius, pt. 3, ch. 4. — The sons of Clovis pushed their conquests on the Germanic as well as on the Gallic side of the Rhine. Theodoric, or Theuderik, who reigned at Metz, with the aid of his brother Clotaire, or Chlother, of Soissons, subjugated the Thurin- gians, between A. D. 515 and 528. "How he [Theuderik] acquired authority over the Ale- mans and the Bavarians is not known. Perhaps in the subjugation of Thuringia he had taken occasion to extend his sway over other nations ; but from this time forth we find not only these, but the Saxons more to the north, regarded as the associates or tributaries of the Eastern or Ripuarian Franks. From the Elbe to the Meuse, and from the Northern Ocean to the .sources of the Rhine, a region comprising a great part of ancient Germany, the ascendency of the Franks was practically acknowledged, and a kingdom was formed [Austrasia — Oster-rike — the East- ern Kingdom] which was destined to overshadow all the other Merovingian states. The various tribes which composed its Germanic accretions, remote and exempt from the influences of the Roman civilization, retained their fierce customs and their rude superstitions, and continued to be governed by tlieir hereditary dukes; but their wild masses marched under the standards of the Franks, and conceded to those formidable conquerors a certain degree of political suprem- acy." When, in 558, Clotaire, by the death of his brothers, became the sole king of the Franks, his empire embraced all Roman Gaul, except Sep- timania, still held by the Visigoths, and Brittany, but slightly subjected; "while in ancient Ger- many, from the Rhine to the Weser, the power- ful duchies of the Alemans, the Thuringians, the Bavarians, the Frisons, and the Saxons, were re- garded not entirely as subject, and yet as tribu- tary provinces." During the next century and a half, the feebleness of the Merovingians lost their hold upon these German tributaries. " As early as the time of Chlother II. the Langobards had recovered their freedom; under Dagobert [623-638], the Saxons; under Sighebert II. [638- 656], the Thuringians; and now, during the late broils [670-687], the Alemans, the Bavarians and the Frisons." But the vigorous Mayors of the Palace, Pepin Heristal and Karl Martel, applied themselves resolutely to the restoration of the Frank supremacy, in Germany as well as in Aquitaine. Pepin "found the task nearly im- possible. Time and again he assailed the Frisons, the Saxons, the Bavarians, and the Alemans, but could Isind them to no truce nor peace for any length of time. No less than ten times the Frisons resumed their arms, while the revolts of the others were so Incessant that he was com- pelled to abandon all hope of recovering the southern or Roman part of Gaul, in order to direct his attention exclusively to the Germans. The aid which he received from the Cliristian missionaries rendered him more successful among them. Those intrepid propagandists pierced where his armies could not. . . . The Franks and the Popes of Rome had a common interest in this work of the conversion of the Germans, the Franks to restrain irruptions, and the Popes to carry their spiritual sway over Europe." Pepin left these unfinished German wars to his son Karl, the Hammer, and Karl prosecuted them with characteristic energy during his first years of power. ' ' Almost every month he was forced into some expedition beyond the Rhine. . . . The Alemans, the Bavarians, and the Prisons, he suc- ceeded in subjecting to a formal confession at least of the Prankish supremacy ; but the turbulent and implacable Saxons batfled his most strenu- ous efforts. Their wild tribes had become, witliin a few years, a powerful and numerous nation; they had appropriated the lands of the Thurin- gians and Hassi, or Catti, and joined to themselves other confederations and tribes; and, stretching from the Rhine to the Elbe, offered their marshes and forests a free asylum to all the persecuted sectaries of Odhinn, to all the lovers of native and savage independence. Six times in succession the armies of Karl penetrated the wilderness they called their home, ravaging their fields and burn- ing their cabins, but the Saxon war was still renewed. He left it to the energetic labors of other conquerors, to Christian missionaries, . . . to break the way of civilization into those rude and darkened realms." Karl's sons Pepin and Karlo- man crushed revolts of the Alemans, or Suabians, and the Bavarians in 743, and Karloman humbled the Saxons in a great campaign (744), compelling them in large numbers to submit to Christian baptism. After that, Germany waited for its first entire master — Charlemagne. — P. Godwin, Hist, of Prance: Ancient Oaul, ch. 13-15. Also in: W. C. Perry, The Franks, ch. 2-6.— See, also, Franks, and Austrasia. 1466 GERMANY, A. D. 687-800. Tlie Carolingians. GERMANY, A. D. 687-800. A. D. 687-800. — Rise of the Carolingians and the Empire of Charlemagne. — "Towards the close of the Merovingian period, . . . the kingdom of the Franks . . . was divided into four great districts, or kingdoms as they were called : Austrasia, or the eastern kingdom, from the river Rhine to the Meuse, with Metz as its principal city; Neustria, or the western king- dom, extending from Austrasia to the ocean on the west, and to the Loire on the south ; Aqui- taine, south of that river to the foot of the Pyre- nees; and Burgundy, from the Rlione to the Alps, including Switzerland. These four king- doms became, before the extinction of the Mero- vingian race, consolidated into two, — viz., Aus- trasia and Neustria, Eastern and Western Francia, — modern Germany and modern France, roughly speaking, — of which the first was to gain the pre-eminence, as it was the seat of the power of that race of Charlemagne which seized upon the kingdoms of the Merovingians. But in these kingdoms, while the family of Clovis occupied them, the roj'al power became more and more feeble as time went on, a condition which is illus- trated by the title given in history to these kings, — that of ' rois faineants. "... The most power- ful officer of a Frankish king was his steward, or, as he was called, the mayor of his palace. ... In Austrasia the office had become heredi- tary in the family of Pepin of Landen (a small village near Lifige), and under its guidance the degenerate children of Clovis in that kingdom fought for the supremacy with those equally de- generate in Neustria, at that time also under the real control of another mayor of the palace, called Ebroin. The result of this struggle, after much bloodshed and misery, was reached in the year 687 at the battle of Testry, in which the Austrasians completely defeated the Neustrians. . . . The Merovingian princes were still nomi- nally kings, while all the real power was in the hands of the descendants of Pepin of Landen, mayors of the palace, and the policy of govern- ment was as fully settled by them as if they had been kings de jure as well as de facto. This family produced in its earlier days some persons who have become among the most conspicuous figures in history: — Pepin, the founder; Pepin le Gros, of Heristal ; Charles, his son, commonly called Martel, or the Hammerer ; Pepin le Bref , under whom the Carlovingian dynasty was, by aid of the Pope, recognized as the lawful suc- cessor of the Merovingians, even before the ex- tinction of that race ; and, lastly, Charles, sur- named the Great, or Charlemagne, one of the few men of the human race who, by common consent, have occupied the foremost rank in history. . . . The object of Pepin of Heristal was two-fold, — to repress the disposition of the turbulent nobles to encroach upon the royal au- thority, and to bring again under the yoke of the Pranks those tribes in Germany who had re- volted against the Frankish rule owing to the weakness of the Merovingian government. He measurably accomplished both objects. . . . He seems to have had what perhaps is the best test at all times of the claims of a man to be a real statesman : some consciousness of the true nature of his mission, — the establishment of order. . . . His son and successor, Charles Martel, was even more conspicuous for the possession of this genius of statesmanship, but he exhibited it in a some- what different direction. He, too, strove to hold the nobles in check, and to break the power of the Frisian and the Saxon tribes ; and he fought besides, fortunately for his fame, one of the fif- teen decisive battles in the history of the world, that of Poitiers, In 733, by which the Saracens, who had conquered Spain, and who had strong hopes of gaining possession of the whole of Western Europe, were driven back from North- ern France, never to return. . . . His son, Pepin le Bref, is equally conspicuous with the rest in history, but in a somewhat different way. He continued the never-ending wars in Germany and in Gaul with the object of securing peace by the sword, and with more or less success. But his career is noteworthy principally because he completed the actual deposition of the last of the Merovingian race, whose nominal servants but real masters he and his predecessors, mayors of the palace, had been, and because he sought and obtained the sanction of the Church for this usurpation. . . . The Pope's position at this time was one of very great embarrassment. Har- assed by the Lombards, who were not only rob- bers, but who were also Arians, and who admit- ted -none of the Catholic clergy to their councils, — with no succor from the Emperors at Constan- tinople (whose subject he nominally was) against the Lombards, and, indeed, in open revolt against them because as bishop and patriarch of the West he had forbidden the execution of the de- cree against the placing of images in the churches, — for these and many such reasons he sorely needed succor, and naturally in his necessity he turned to the powerful King of the Franks. The coronation of Pepin le Bref, first by St. Boni- face, and then by the Pope himself, was the first step in the fulfilment of the alliance on his part. Pepin was soon called upon to do his share of the work. Twice at the bidding of the Pope he de- scended from the Alps, and, defeating the Lom- bards, was rewarded by him and the people of Rome with the title of Patrician. . . . On the death of Pepin, the Lombards again took up arms and harassed the Church's territory. Charle- magne, his successor, was called upon to come to the rescue, and he swept the Lombard power in Italy out of existence, annexing its territory to the Frankish kingdom, and confirming the grant of the Exarchate and of the Pentapolis which his father had made to the Popes. "This was in the year 774. . . . For twenty-five years Charle- magne ruled Rome nominally as Patrician, under the supremacy, equally nominal, of the Emperor at Constantinople. The true sovereign, recog- nized as such, was the Pope or Bishop of Rome, but the actual power was in the hands of the mob, who at one time towards the close of the century, in the absence of both Emperor and Patrician, assaulted the Pope while conducting a procession, and forced him to abandon the city. This Pope, Leo, with a fine instinct as to the quarter from which succor could alone come, hurried to seek Charlemagne, who was then in Germany engaged in one of his never-ending wars against the Saxons. The appeal for aid was not made in vain, and Charles descended once more from the Alps in the summer of 799, with his Frankish hosts. On Christmas day, A. D. 800, in the Church of St. Peter . . . Pope Leo, during the mass, and after flie reading of the gospel, placed upon the brow of Charle- magne, who had abandcttied his northern furs for the dress of a Roman patrician, the diadem of 1467 GERMANY. A. D. 37-800. Charlemagiie's Restora- GERMANY, A. D. 814-843. tion of the Empire. the Csesars, and hailed him Imperator Semper Augustus, while the multitude shouted, ' Carolo, Augusto a Deo coronato maguo et pacifico Im- peratori Vita et Victoria.' In that shout and from that moment one of the most fruitful epochs of history begins." — C. J. Stille, Studies in Me- diceval History, ch. 3. — See, also, Fkauks: A. D. 768-814. A. D. 8oo. — Charlemagne's restoration of the Roman Empire. — "Three hundred and twenty -four years had passed since the last CiEsar of the West resigned his power into the hands of the senate, and left to his Eastern brother the sole headship of the Roman world. To the latter Italy had from that time been nom- inally subject; but it was only during one brief interval, between the death of Totila the last Ostrogothic king and the descent of Alboin the first Lombard, that his power had been really effective. In the further provinces, Gaul, Spain, Britain, it was only a memory. But the idea of a Roman Empire as a necessary part of the world's order had not vanished: it had been ad- mitted by those who seemed to be destroying it ; it had been cherished by the Church ; was still recalled by laws and customs ; was dear to the subject populations, who fondly looked back to the days when slavery was at least mitigated by peace and order. . . . Both the extinction of the Western Empire in [A. D. 476] . . . and its revival in A. D. 800 have been very generally misunder- stood in modem times. . . . When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustu- lus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but caused it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was, as there had been before Diocletian, a single undivided Roman Empire. In A. D. 800 the very memory of the separate Western Empire, as it had stood from the death of Theo- dosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor any one among their advisers dreamt of reviving it. They, too, like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of the Frankish king, not to proclaim a severance of the East and West, but to reverse the act of Constantine, and make Old Rome again the civil as well as the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire that bore her name. . . . Although therefore we must in prac- tice speak during the next seven centuries (down till A. D. 1453, when Constantinople fell before the Mohammedan) of an Eastern and a Western Empire, the phrase is in strictness incorrect, and was one which either court ought to have repu- diated. The Byzantines always did repudiate it; the Latins usually; although, yielding to facts, they sometimes condescended to employ it themselves. But their theory was always the same. Charles was held to be the legitimate successor, not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Basil, Heraclius, Justinian, Arcadius, and all the Eastern line. . . . North Italy and Rome ceased for ever to own the supremacy of Byzan- tium; and while the Eastern princes paid a shameful tribute to the Mussulman, the Frankish Emperor — as the recognised head of Christen- dom — received from the patriarch of Jerusalem the keys of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Calvary ; the gift of the Sepulchre itself, says Eginhard, from Aaron king of the Persians [the Caliph Haroun el Rashid]. . . . Four centuries later, when Papacy and Empire had been forced into the mortal struggle by which the fate of both was decided, three distinct theories regard- ing the coronation of Charles will be found ad- vocated by three different parties, all of them plausible, all of them to some extent misleading. The Swabian Emperors held the crown to have been won by their great predecessor as the prize of conquest, and drew the conclusion that the citizens and bishop of Rome had no rights as against themselves. The patriotic party among the Romans, appealing to the early history of the Empire, declared that by nothing but the voice of their senate and people could an Emperor be lawfully created, he being only their chief mag- istrate, the temporary depositary of their author- ity. 'The Popes pointed to the indisputable fact that Leo imposed the crown, and argued that as God's earthly vicar it was then his, and must always continue to be their right to give to whomsoever they would an office which was created to be the handmaid of their own. Of these three it was the last view that eventually prevailed. " — J. Bryce, Tlie Holy Roman Empire, ch. 4-5. Also ln: J. I. Mombert, Hist, of GJiarles the Great, ch. 14.— See, also, Pbanks: A.D. 768-814. A. D. 805. — Conquest of the Avars. — Crea- tion of the Austrian March. See Avabs, and Austria; A. D. 805-1246. A. D. 814-843. — Division of the Empire of Charlemagne. — "There was a manifest conflict, during his later years, in the court, in the coun- cils, in the mind of Charlemagne [who died in 814], between the King of the Franks and the Emperor of the West ; between the dissociating, independent Teutonic principle, and the Roman principle of one code, one dominion, one sover- eign. The Church, though Teutonic in descent, was Roman in the sentiment of unity. . . . That unity had been threatened by the proclaimed division of the realm between the sons of Char- lemagne. The old Teutonic usage of equal dis- tribution seemed doomed to prevail over the au- gust unity of the Roman Empire. What may appear more extraordinary, the kingdom of Italy was the inferior appanage: it carried not vrith it the Empire, which was still to retain a certain supremacy; that was reserved for the Teutonic sovereign. It might seem as if this were but the continuation of the Lombard kingdom, which Charlemagne still held by the right of conquest. It was bestowed on Pepin ; after his death en- trusted to Bernhard, Pepin's illegitimate but only son. Wiser counsels prevailed. The two elder sons of Charlemagne died without issue; Louis the third son was summoned from his kingdom of Aquitaine, and solemnly crowned [813] at Aix-la-Chapelle, as successor to the whole Empire."— H. H. Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity, bk. 5, ch. 3 (v. 3).— "Instead of being preoccupied with the care of keeping the empire united, Louis divided it in the year 817 by giving kingdoms to his three sons. The eld- est, Lothaire, had Italy ; Louis, Bavaria ; Pepin, Aquitaine. A nephew of the emperor, Bernard, Imagined himself wronged by this partition, and took up arms to hold Italy. Vanquished with- out striking a blow, he delivered himself up to his uncle, who caused his eyes to be put out. He expired under that torture. Louis reproached himself later for that cruel death, and to expiate it, subjected himself to a public penance. In 1468 GERMANY, A. D. 814-843. Division of the Empire. GERMANY, A. D. 911. 833, there was born to him a fourth son. To make him a sharer of his inlicritance, the em- peror, annulling in 829 the partition of 817, gave him German}', thus depriving his elder sons of part of the inheritance jjreviously assigned them. This provoked the resentment of those princes; they rose iu rebellion against their father, and the rest of the reign of Louis was only a suc- cession of impious contests with his turbulent sons. In 833, he deposed Pepin, and gave his kingdom of Aquitaine to his youngest born, Charles. Twice deposed himself, and twice re- stored, Louis only emerged from the cloister, for which he was so well fitted, to repeat the same faults. AVhen Louis the Good-natured died in 840, it was not his cause only which he had lost through his weakness, but that of the empire. Those intestine quarrels presaged its dismember- ment, which ere long happened. The sons of Louis, to serve their own ambition, had revived the national antipathies of the different races. Lothaire placed himself at the head of the Ital- ians ; Louis rallied the Germans round him, and Charles the Bald the Franks of Gaul, who were henceforward called Frenchmen. Those three peoples aspired to break up the union whose bond Charlemagne had imposed upon them, as the three brothers aspired to form each for himself a kingdom. The question was decided at the great battle of Fontanet, near Auxerre, in 841. Lo- thaire, who fought therein for the preservation of the empire and of his authority, was con- quered. By the treaty of Verdun [843 — see Verdun, Treaty of] it was decided that Louis should have Germany to the east of the Rhine; Charles, France to the west of the Scheld, the ■Meuse, the Saone, and the. Rhone; finally, Lo- thaire, Italy, with the long range of country com- prised between the Alps and the Cevennes, the Jura, the Saone, the Rhine, and the Meuse, which from his name was called Lotharingia. This designation is still to be traced in one of the recently French provinces, Lorraine." — S. Men- zies. Hist, of Europe from the Decadence of the Western Empire to the Reformation, eh. 13. A. D. 843. — Accession of Louis XL A. D. 843-962. — Treaty of Verdun. — Definite separation from France. — The kingdom of the East Franks. — The partition of the empire of Charlemagne among his three grandsons, by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843 (see Verdun, Treaty OF; also, Franks: A. D. 814-962), gave to Charles the Bald a kingdom which nearly coincided with France, as afterwards existing under that name, "before its Burgundian and German annexations. It also founded a kingdom which roughly an- swered to the later Germany before its great ex- tension to the East at the expense of the Slavonic nations. And as the Western kingdom was formed by the addition of Aquitaine to the West- ern Francia, so the Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria [surnamed ' the German '] be- came king of a kingdom which we are tempted to call the kingdom of Germany. Still it would as yet be premature to speak of France at all, or even to speak of Germany, except in the geographical sense. The two kingdoms are severally the kingdoms of the Eastern and of the Western Franks. . . . The Kings had no special titles, and their dominions had no special names recognized in formal use. Every king who ruled over any part of the ancient Francia was a king of the Franks. . . . The East- ern part of the Fraukish dominions, the lot of Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic King- dom. Its king is the King of the East-Franks, sometimes simply the King of the Eastern men, sometimes the King of Germany. . . . The title of King of Germany is often found in the ninth century as a description, but it was not a formal title. The Eastern king, like other kings, for the most part simply calls himself ' Rex,' till the time came when his rank as King of Germany, or of the East-Franks, became simply a step towards the higher title of Emperor of the Ro- mans. . . . This Eastern or German kingdom, as it came out of the division of 887 [after the de- position of Charles III., called Charles the Fat, who came to the throne in 881, and who had momentarily reunited all the Frankish crowns, ex- cept that of Burgundy], had, from nortli to south, nearly the same extent as the Germany of later times. It stretched from the Alps to the Eider. Its southern boundaries were somewhat fluctuat- ing. Verona and Aquileia are sometimes counted as a German march, and the boundary between Germany and Burgundy, crossing the modern Switzerland, often changed. To the north-east the kingdom hardly stretched beyond the Elbe, except in the small Saxon land between the Elbe and the Eider [called ' Saxony beyond the Elbe ' — modern Holstein]. The great extension of the German power over the Slavonic lands beyond the Elbe had hardly yet begun. To the south- east lay the two border-lands or marks ; the East- ern Mark, which grew into the later duchy of Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to the south of it the mark of Kfirnthen or Carinthia. But the main part of the kingdom consisted of the great duchies of Saxony, Eastern Francia, Alemannia, and Bavaria. Of these the two names of Saxony and Bavaria must be carefully marked as having widely different meanings from tho.se which they bear on the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhino, though it never actually touches the last-named river. To the south of Saxony lies the Eastern Francia, the centre and kernel of the German kingdom. The Main and the Neckar both join the Rhine within its borders. To tlie south of Francia lie Ale- mannia and Bavaria. This last, it must be remem- bered, borders on Italy, with Bijtzen for its fron- tier town. Alemannia is the land in which both the Rhine and the Danube take their source ; it stretches on both sides of the Bodensee or Lake of Constanz, with the Rsetian Alps as its southern boundary. For several ages to come, there is no distinction, national or even provincial, between the lands north and south of the Bodensee." — E. A. Freeman, Historical Oeog. of Europe, ch. 6, sect. 1. Also in : Sir F, Palgrave, Hist, of Normandy and England, v. 1-3. — On the indefiniteness of the name of the Germanic kingdom in this period, see France : 9th Century. A. D. 881.— Accession of Charles III. (called The Fat), aftervyards King of all the Franks and Emperor. A. D. 888. — Accession of Arnulf, afterwards Emperc. A. D. 899. — Accession of Louis III. (called The Child). A. D. 911. — Election of Conrad I. 1469 GERMANY, A. D. 911-936. The Saxon line. GERMANY, A. D. 936-973. A. D. 911-936. — Conrad the Franconian and Henry the Fowler.— Beginning of the Saxon line. — Hungarian invasion. — The building of towns. — In 911, on the death of Louis, surnaraed the Child, the German or Bast-Frank branch of the dynasty of Charlemagne had become e.xtinct. "There remained indeed Charles the Simple, ac- knowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The Germans therefore wise- ly determined to chose a sovereign from among themselves. They were at tliis time divided into five nations, eacli under its own duke, and distin- guished by difference of laws, as well as of origin ; the Franks, whose territory, comprising Fran- conia and the modern Palatinate, was considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have arrogated some superiority over tlie rest, the Sua- bians, tlie Bavarians, the Sa.xons . . . and the Lorrainers, who occupied tlie left bank of the Rhine as far as its termination. The choice of these nations in their general assembly fell upon Conrad, duke of Franconia. according to some writers, or at least a man of high rank, and de- scended througli females from Charlemagne. Conrad dying without male issue, the crown of Germany was bestowed [A. D. 919] upon Henry the Fowler, duke of Saxony, ancestor of the three Othos, who followed him in direct succes- sion. To Henry, and to the first Otho [A. D. 936- 973], Germany was more indebted tlian to any sovereign since Charlemagne. " — H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, ch.5. — " In 934, the Hungarians, who were as much dreaded as the angel of destruction, re-appeared. They came from the grassy plains of Hungary, mounted on small and ugly, but strong horses, and swept along the Danube like a hailstorm. Wlierever they came they set fire to farms, hamlets, and towns, and killed all liv- ing creatures or carried tliem off. And often they bound their prisoners to the tails of their horses, and dragged them along till tliey died from the dreadful torture. Their very figures inspired disgust and terror, for their faces were brown, and disfigured by scars to absolute hideousness ; their heads were shaven, and brutal ferocity and rapacity shone out of their deep-set eyes. And though the Germans fought bravely, these ene- mies always overmatched tliem, because they ap- peared now here, now there, on their fleet horses, and fell upon isolated districts before they were expected or could be stopped. . . . When on a sudden the terrible cry, ' The Hungarians are coming, the Hungarians are coming,' resounded through the land, all fled who could, as if tlie wild legions of hell were marching through Saxony and Thuringia. King Henry, however, would not fly, but encountered them in combat, like a true knight. Yet he lost the battle, either because he was ill, or because his soldiers were too few, and unaccustomed to the enemy's mode of fighting, which enabled them to conquer while they were fleeing. Henry was obliged to shut himself up in tlie royal palace of Werla. near Goslar, which he bravely defended. The Hungarians stormed it again and again, but they could not scale the w'alls ; while Henry's men by a daring sally took a Hungarian chieftain prisoner, which so terrified the besiegers that they concluded a truce for nine years on condition tliat their chief should be re- leased, and that Henry should engage to pay a yearly tribute. Henry submitted to the dislionour- able sacrifice that he might husband his strength for better times. . . . How important it was to have fortified places which could not be stormed by cavalry, and therefore afforded a safe refuge to the neiglibouring peasantry, Henry recognised in 939, when the Hungarians marched through Bavaria and Suabia to Lorraine, plundered the time-honoured monastery of St. Gall, and burnt the suburbs of Constance, but could not take the fortified town itself. Henry, accordingly, pub- lished an order throughout the land, that at suit- able places large fortresses should be built, in which every ninth man from the neighbouring district must take garrison duty. Certainly liv- ing in towns was contrary to the customs of the North Germans, and here and there there was much resistance; but they soon recognised the wisdom of the royal order, and worked night and day with such diligence that there soon arose throughout the land towns with stately towers and strong walls, behind whose battlements the armed burghers defiantly awaited the Hungarians. Hamburg was then fortified, Itzehoe built, the walls of Magdeburg, Halle, and Erfurt extended, for these towns had stood since the time of Charle- magne. Quedlinburg, Merseburg, Meissen, Wit- tenberg, Goslar, Soest, Nordhausen, Duderstadt, Gronau, PSlde, were rebuilt, and many others of which the old chroniclers say nothing. Those who dwelt in the cities were called burghers, and in order that they might not be idle they began to practise many kinds of industry, and to barter their goods with the peasants. The emperor en- couraged the building of towns, and granted emancipation to every slave who repaired to a town, allowed the towns to hold fairs and mar- kets, granted to them the light of coining money and levying taxes, and gave them many landed estates and forests. Under such encouragement town life rapidly developed, and the emperor, in his disputes with the lawless nobility, always re- ceived loyal support from his disciplined burgh- ers. After a few centuries tlie towns, which had now generally become republics, under the name of 'free imperial towns,' became the seats of the perfection of European trade, science, and cul- ture. . . . These incalculable benefits are due to Henry's order to build towns." — A. W. Griibe, Heroes of History and Legend, ch. 8. — At the ex- piration of the nine years truce, the Hungarians resumed their attacks, and were defeated by Henry in two bloody battles. A. D. 936-973. — Restoration of the Roman Empire by Otho L, called the Great. — " Otho the Great, sou and successor of Henry I., added the kingdom of Italy to the conquests of his father, and procured also the Imperial dignity for him- self, and his successors in Germany. Italy had become a distinct kingdom since the revolution, which happened (888) at the death of the Emperor Charles the Fat. Ten princes in succession oc- cupied the throne during the space of seventy- three years. Several of these princes, such as Guy, Lambert, Arnulf, Louis of Burgundy, and Berenger I., were invested with the Imperial dignity. Berenger I., having been assassinated (934), this latter dignity ceased entirely, and the city of Rome was even dismembered from the kingdom of Italy. The sovereignty of that city was seized by the famous Marozia, widow of a nobleman named Alberic. She raised her son to the pontificate by the title of John XI. ; and the bet- ter to establish lier dominion, she espoused Hugo King of Italy (932), who became, in consequence 1470 GERMANT, A. D. 936-973. The restored Roman Empire. GERMANY, A. D. 936-973. of this marriage, master of Rome. But Alberic, another son of Marozia, soon stirred up the people against this aspiring princess and her husband Hugo. Having driven Hugo from the throne, and slmt up his mother in prison, he assumed to himself the sovereign authority, under the title of Patrician of the Romans. At his death (954) he transmitted the sovereignty to his son Octa- vian, who, though onl}' nineteen years of age, caused himself to be elected pope, by the title of John XII. This epoch was one most disastrous for Italy. The weakness of the government ex- cited factions among the nobility, gave birth to anarchy, and fresh opportunity for the depreda- tions of the Hungarians and Arabs, who, at this period, were the scourge of Italy, which they ravaged with impunity. Pavia, the capital of the kingdom, was taken, and burnt by the Hun- garians. These troubles increased on the acces- sion of Berenger II. (950), grandson of Berenger I. That prince associated his son Adelbert with him in the royal dignity ; and the public voice accused them of having caused the death of King Lothaire, son and successor of Hugo. Lothaire left a young widow, named Adelaide, daughter of Rodolph II., King of Burgundy and Italy. To avoid the importunities of Berenger II., who wished to compel her to marry his son Adelbert, this princess called in the King of Germany to her aid. Otho complied with the solicitations of the distressed queen ; and, on this occasion, undertook his first expedition into Italy (951). The city of Pavia, and several other places, having fallen into his hands, he made himself be proclaimed King of Italy, and married the young queen, his protegee. Berenger and his son, being driven for shelter to their strongholds, had recourse to negociation. They succeeded in obtaining for themselves a confirmation of the royal title of Italy, on condition of doing homage for it to the King of Germany. ... It appears that it was not without the regret, and even contrary to the wish of Adelaide, that Otho agreed to enter into terms of accommodation with Berenger. . . . Afterwards, however, he lent a favourable ear to the complaints which Pope John XII. and some Italian noblemen had addressed to him against Berenger and his son ; and took occasion, on their account, to conduct a new army into Italy (961). Berenger, too feeble to oppose him, retired a second time within his fortifications. Otho marched from Pavia to Milan, and there made himself be crowned King of Italy ; from thence he passed to Rome, about the commencement of the following year. Pope John XII. , who had himself invited him, and again implored his pro- tection against Berenger, gave him, at first, a very brilliant reception; and revived the Imperial dignity in his favour, which had been dormant for thirty-eight years. It was on the 2d of Feb- ruary, 962, that the Pope consecrated and crowned him Emperor; but he had soon cause to repent of this proceeding. Otho, immediately after his coronation at Rome, undertook the siege of St. Leon, a fortress in Umbria, where Berenger and his queen had taken refuge. While engaged in the siege, he received frequent in- timations from Rome, of the misconduct and immoralities of the Pope. The remonstrances which he thought It his duty to make on this subject, offended the young pontiff, who resolved, in consequence, to break off union with the Em- peror. Hurried on by the impetuosity of his char- acter, he entered into a negociation with Adelbert; and even persuaded him to come to Rome, in order to concert with him measures of defence. On the first news of this event, Otho put himself at the head of a large detachment, with which he marched directly to Rome. The Pope, how- ever, did not think it advisable to wait his ap- proach, but fled with the King, his new ally. Otho, on arriving at the capital, exacted a solemn oath from the clergy and the people, that hence- forth they would elect no pope without his coun- sel, and that of the Emperor and his successors. Having then assembled a council, he caused Pope John XII. to be deposed; and Leo VIII. was elected in his place. This latter Pontiff was maintained in the papacy, in spite of all the efforts which his adversary made to regain it. Berenger II. , after having sustained a long siege at St. Leon, fell at length (964) into the hands of the conqueror, who sent him into exile at Bamberg, and compelled his son, Adelbert, to take refuge in the court of Constantinople. All Italy, to the extent of the ancient kingdom of the Lombards, fell under the dominion of the Germans; only a few maritime towns in Lower Italy, with the greater part of Apulia and Calabria, still remained in the power of the Greeks. This kingdom, to- gether with the Imperial dignity, Otho transmit- ted to his successors on the throne of Germany. From this time the Germans held it to be an in- violable principle, that as the Imperial dignity was strictly united with the royalty of Italy, kings elected by the German nation should, at the same time, in virtue of that election, become Kings of Italy and Emperors. The practice of this triple coronation, viz., of Germany, Italy, and Rome, continued for many centuries; and from Otho the Great, till Maximilian I. (1508), no king of Germany took the title of Emperor, un- til after he had been formally crowned by the Pope." — C. W. Koch, Tlie Eevolutio7i» of Europe, period 3. — " At the first glance it would seem as if the relation in which Otho now stood to the pope was the same as that occupied by Charle- magne ; on a closer inspection, however, we find a wide difference. Charlemagne's connexion with the see of Rome was produced by mutual need; it was the result of long epochs of political combination embracing the development of vari- ous nations; their mutual understanding rested on an internal necessity, before which all oppos- ing views and Interests gave way. The sover- eignty of Otho the Great, on the contrary, rested on a principle fundamentally opposed to the en- croachment of spiritual influences. The alliance was momentary ; the disruption of it inevitable. But when, soon after, the same pope who had invoked his aid, John XII., placed himself at the head of a rebellious faction, Otho was compelled to cause him to be formally deposed, and to brush the faction that supported him by repeated exertions of force, before he could obtain perfect obedience ; he was obliged to raise to the papal chair a pope on whose co-operation he could rely. The popes have often asserted that they trans- ferred the empire to the Germans ; and if they confined this assertion to the Carolingian race, they are not entirely wrong. The coronation of Charlemagne was the result of their free deter- mination. But if they allude to the German emperors, properly so called, the contrary of their statement is j ust as true ; not only Carlmann and Otho the Great, but their successors, constantly 1471 GERMANY, A, D. 936-973. The restored Roman Empire. GERMANY, A. D. 973-1122. had to conquer the imperial throne, and to defend it, when conquered, sword in hand. It has been said that the Germans would have done more wisely if they had not meddled with the empire ; or, at least, if they had first worked out their own internal political institutions, and then, with matured minds, taken part in the gen- eral affairs of Europe. But the things of this world are not wont to develop themselves so methodically. A nation is often compelled by circumstances to increase its territorial extent, be- fore its internal growth is completed. For was it of slight importance to its inward progress that Germany thus remained in unbroken con- nexion with Italy? — the depository of all that remained of ancient civilisation, the source whence all the forms of Christianity had been derived. The mind of Germany has always un- folded itself by contact with the spirit of an- tiquity, and of the nations of Roman origin. . . . The German imperial government revived the civilising and Christianising tendencies which had distinguished the reigns of Charles Martell and Charlemagne. Otho the Great, in following the course marked out by his illustrious pre- decessors, gave it a fresh national importance by planting German colonies in Slavonian coun- tries simultaneously with the diffusion of Chris- tianity. He Germanised as well as converted the population he had subdued. He con- firmed his fathers conquests on the Saale and the Elbe, by the establishment of the bishoprics of Meissen and Osterland. After having con- quered the tribes on the other side the Elbe in those long and perilous campaigns where he commanded in person, he established there, too, three bishopries, which for a time gave an ex- traordinary impulse to the progress of conver- sion. . . ." And even where the project of Ger- manising the population was out of the question, the supremacy of the German name was firmly and actively maintained. In Bohemia and Po- land bishoprics were erected under German met- ropelitans ; from Hamburg Christianity found its way into the north; missionaries from Passau traversed Hungary, nor is it improbable that the influence of these vast and sublime efforts ex- tended even to Russia. The German empire was the centre of the conquering religion; as itself advanced, it extended the ecclesiastico-military State of which the Church was an integral part; it was the chief representative of the unity of western Christendom, and hence arose the neces- sity under which it lay of acquiring a decided ascendancy over the papacy. This secular and Gtermanic principle long retained the predomi- nancy it had triumphantly acquired. . . . How magnificent was the position now occupied by the German nation, represented in the persons of the mightiest princes of Europe and united under their sceptre ; at the head of an advancing civi- lisation, and of the whole of western Christendom ; in the fullness of youthful aspiring strength! We must here however remark and confess, that Germany did not wholly understand her position, nor fulfil her mission. Above all, she did not succeed in giving complete reality to the idea of a western empire, such as appeared about to be established under Otho I. Independent and often hostile, though Christian powers arose through all the borders of Germany ; in Hungary and in Poland, in the northern as well as in the southern possessions of the Normans ; England and France were snatched again from German influence. Spain laughed at the German claims to a uni- versal supremacy ; her kings thought themselves emperors; even the enterprises nearest home — those across the Elbe — were for a time stationary or retrograde. If we seek for the causes of these unfavourable results, we need only turn our eyes on the internal condition of the empire, where we find an incessant and tempestuous struggle of all the forces of the nation. Unfortunately the establishment of a fixed rule of succession to the imperial crown was continually prevented by events." — L. Ranke, Hist, of the Reformation in, Oermany, introd. — See, also, Italy: A. D. 961- 1039 ; and Roman EMPraE, The Holy. A. D. 955. — Great defeat and repulse of the Hungarians by Otho I. See Hungarlvns: A. D. 934-955. A. D. 973-1122. — End of the Saxon line. — Election of the Franconians. — Reformation of the Papacy. — Contest of Henry IV. with the Head of the Church. — The question of Investi- tures. — " Otho II. had a short and troubled reign, 973-983 A. D., having to repress the Slavi, the Danes, the Greeks of Lower Italy, and to defend Lorraine against the French. He died at Rome in his twenty-eighth year, 983 A. D. Otho III. (aged three years) succeeded under the regency of his mother, Theophania (a Greek princess), who had to contend with the rebellious nobles, the Slavi, the Poles, the Bohemians, and with France, which desired to conquer Lorraine. This able lady died 991 A. D. Otho III. made three expeditions into Italy, and in 998 A. D. put down the republic of Rome, which had been created by the patrician Crescentius. The resistance of Crescentius had been pardoned the preceding year, but on this occasion he was publicly be- headed on the battlements of Rome, in view of the army and of the people. In 999 A. D. Otho placed ills tutor Gerbert in the papal chair as Sylvester II. The tutor and the emperor were in advance of their age. The former had gleaned from Saracen translations from the Greek, as well as from Latin literature, and was master of the science of the day. It is supposed that they had planned to remove the seat of empire to Rome — a project which, had he lived, he would not have been able to carry out, for the centre of political power had long moved northward : he died at the early age of twenty-two, 1003 A. D. Henry II. (the Holy), Duke of Bavaria, was elected emperor, and had to battle, like hi? pre- decessors, with rebellious nobles, with the Poles, and Bohemians, and the Slavi. He was thrice in Italy, and died 1024 A. D. 'Perhaps, with the single exception of St. Louis IX., there was no other prince of the middle ages so uniformly swayed by justice.' Conrad II. (the Salic) of Franconia was elected emperor in a diet in the plains between Mentz and Worms, near Oppeu- heim, which was attended by princes, nobles, and 50,000 people altogether. His reign wap remarkable for the justice and mercy which he always kept in view. The kingdom of Aries and Burguudv was united to the empire, 1033 A. D. He checked the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Lombards, and gave Schleswick to Den- mark as a fief. In 1037 A. D. he granted to the lower vassals of the empire the hereditary suc- cession to their oflices and estates, and so ex- tended the privileges of the great nobles, as to make them almost Independent of the crown. 1472 GERMANY, A. D. 973-1122. The Papacy ami the Empire, GERMANY, A. D. 973-1122. Henry HI. succeeded, 1039 A. D. , and establislied the imperial power with a high hand. " — -W. B. Boyce, Introduction to the Study of History, pp. 330-231. — "Henry HI. was, as sovereign, able, upright, and resolute ; and liis early deatli — for his reign was cut short by disasters that preyed upon liis health — is one of the calamities of his- tory. The cause of the Roman Court he j udged with vigor and good sense. His strong hand, more than any man's, dragged the Cliurcli out of the slough it had fallen into [see Ro.me: A, D. 962-1057]. ... A few years before, in 1033, a child ten years old, son of one of the noble houses, had been put cm the papal throne, under the name of Benedict IX. ; and was restored to it by force of arms, five years later, when he had grown into a lewd, violent, and wilful boy of fifteen. At the age of twenty-one he was weary of the struggle, and sold out, for a large sum of money paid down, to a rich jnirchaser, — first plundering the papal treasury of all the funds he could lay his hands on. His successor, Gregory VI., naturally complained of his hard bargain, which was made harder by another claimant (Sylvester III.), elected by a different party; while no law that could possibly be quoted or invented would make valid the purchase and sale of the spiritual sovereignty of the world, wliich in theory the Papacy still was. Gregory appears to have been a respectable and even conscientious magistrate, by the standard of that evil time. But his open purchase of the dignity not only gave a shock to whatever right feeling there was left, but it made the extraordinary dilemma and scandal of three popes at once, — a knot which the German king, now Emperor, was called in to cut. . . . The worthless Benedict was dis- missed, as having betrayed his charge. The im- potent Sylvester was not recognized at all. The respectable Gregory was duly convinced of his deep guilt of Simony, — because he had ' thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money, ' — and was suffered as a penitent to end his days in peace. A fourth, a German ecclesi- astic, who was clean of all these intrigues, was set in the chair of Peter, where he reigned right- eously for two years under the name of Clement II." — J. H. Allen, Christian History in its Tliree Orait Periods : Second period, pp. 57-58. — "With the popes of Henry's appointment a new and most powerful force rose to the control of the papacy — a strong and earnest movement for ref- ormation which had arisen outside the circle of papal influence during the darkest days of its degradation, indeed, and entirely independent of the empire. This had started from the monas- tery of Cluny, founded in 910, in eastern France, as a reformation of the monastic life, but it in- volved gradually ideas of a wider reformation throughout the whole church. Two great sins of the time, as it regarded them, were especially attacked, the marriage of priests and simony, or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment for money, including also appointments to church offices by temporal rulers. . . . The earnest spirit of Henry III. was not out of sympathy with the demand for a real reformation, and with the third pope of his appointment, Leo IX., in 1048, the Ideas of Cluny obtained the direction of affairs. . . . One apparently insignificant act of Leo's had important consequences. He brought back with him to Rome the monk Hildebrand. He had been brought up in a monastery in Rome in 93 ^^73 the strictest ideas of Cluny, had been a supporter of Gregory VI. , one of the three rival popes de- posed by Henry, who, notwithstanding his out- right purchase of the papacy, represented the new reform demand, and had gone with him into exile on his deposition. It does not appear that he exercised any decisive influence during the reign of Leo IX., but so great was his ability and such the power of his personality that very soon he became the directing spirit in the papal policy, though his influence over the papacy be- fore his own pontificate was not so great nor so constant as it has sometimes been said to have been. So long as Henry lived the balance of power was decidedly in favor of the emperor, but in 1056 happened that disastrous event, which occurred so many times at critical points of imperial history, from Arnulf to Henry VI., the premature death of the emperor. His son, Henry IV. , was only six years old at his father's deatli, and a minority followed just in the crisis of time needed to enable the feudal princes of Germany to recover and strengthen their inde- pendence against the central government, and to give free hands to the papacy to carry out its plans for throwing off the imperial control. Never again did an emperor occujij', in respect either to Germany or the papacy, the vantage- ground on which Henry HI. had stood. . . . The triumph of the reform movement and of its eccle- siastical theory is especially connected with the name of Hildebrand, or Gregory VII., as he called himself when pope, and was very largely, if not entirely, due to his indomitable spirit and iron will, which would yield to no persuasion or threats or actual force. He is one of the most interesting personalities of history. . . . The three chief points which the reform party at- tempted to gain were the independence of the church from all outside control in the election of the pope, the celibacy of the clergy, and the abo- lition of simony or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment. The foundation for the first of these was laid under Nicholas II. by assigning the selection of the pope to the college of cardinals in Rome, though it was only after some consid- erable time that this reform was fully secured. The second point, the celibacy of the clergy, had long been demanded by the church, but the re- quirement had not been strictly enforced, and in many parts of Europe married clergy were the rule. ... As interpreted by the reformers, the third of their demands, the suppression of simony, was as great a step in advance and as revolution- ary as the first. Technically, simony was the sin of securing an ecclesiastical office by bribery, named from the incident recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts concerning Simon Magus. But at this time the desire for the complete in- dependence of the church had given to it a new and wider meaning which made it include all appointment to positions in the church by lay- men, including kings and the emperor. . . . Ac- cording to the conception of the public law the bisliop was an officer of the state. He had, in the great majority of cases, political duties to perform as important as his ecclesiastical duties. The lands which formed the endowment of his office had always been considered as being, still more directly than any other feudal land, the property of the state. ... It was a matter of vital importance whether officers exercising such important functions and controlling so large a GERMANY, A. D. 973-1133. Henry IV. and Hildebrand. GERMANY, A. D. 973-1133. part of its area — probably everywhere as much as one-third of the territory — should bo selected by the state or by some foreign power beyond its reach and having its own peculiar interests to seek. But this question of lay investiture was as vitally important for the church as for the state. ... It was as necessary to the centraliza- tion and independence of the church that it should choose these officers as that it should elect the head of all — the pope. This was not a ques- tion for Germany alone. Every northern state had to face the same difficulty. . . . The struggle was so much more bitter and obstinate with the emperor than with any other sovereign because of the close relation of the two powers one to another, and because the whole question of their relative rights was bound up with it. It was an act of rebellion on the part of the papacy against the sovereign, who had controlled it with almost absolute power for a century, and it was rising into an equal, or even superior, place beside the emperor of what was practically a new power, a rival for his imperial position. ... It was abso- lutely impossil)le that a conflict with these new claims should be avoided as soon as Henry IV. arrived at an age to take the government into his own hands and attempted to exercise his im- perial rights as he understood them." — G. B. Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages, ch. 10. — "At Gregory's accession, he [Henry] was a young man of twenty-three. His violence had already driven a whole district into rebellion. . . . The Pope sided with the insurgents. He summoned the young king to his judgment-seat at Rome ; threatened at his refusal to ' cut him off as a rotten limb ' ; and passed on him the awful sentence of excommunication. The double terror of rebellion at home and the Church's curse at length broke down the passionate pride of Henry. Humbled and helpless, he crossed the Alps in midwinter, groping among the bleak precipices and ice-fields, — the peasants passing him in a rude sledge of hide down those dreadful slopes,^ and went to beg absolution of Gregory at the mountain castle of Canossa. History has few scenes more dramatic than that which shows the proud, irascible, crest-fallen young sovereign confronted with the fiery, little, indomitable old man. To quote Gregory's own words: — 'Here he came with few attendants, and for three days before the gate — his royal apparel laid aside, barefoot, clad in wool, and weeping abundantly — he never ceased to implore the aid and com- fort of apostolic mercy, till all there present were moved with pity and compassion ; insomuch that, interceding for him with many prayers and tears they all wondered at my strange severity, and some even cried out that it was not so much the severe dignity of an apostle as the cruel wrath of a tyrant. Overcome at length by the urgency of his appeal and the entreaties of all present, I relaxed the bond of anathema, and received him to the favor of communion and the bosom of our holy Mother the Church.' It was a truce which one party did not mean nor the other hope to keep. It was policy, not real terror or con- viction, that had led Henry to humble himself bsfore the Pope. It was policy, not contrition or compassion, that had led Gregory (against his better judgment, it is said) to accept his Sover- eign's penance. In the war of policy, the man of the world prevailed. Freed of the Church's curse, he quickly won back the strength he had lost. He overthrew in battle the rival whom Gregory upheld. He swept his rebellious lands with sword and flame. He carried his victorious army to Rome, and was there crowned Emperor by a rival Pope [1084]. Gregory himself was only saved by his ferocious allies, Norman and Saracen, at cost of the devastation of half the capital, — that broad belt of ruin which still covers the half mile between the Coliseum and the Lateran gate. Then, hardlj- rescued from the popular wrath, he went away to die, defeated and heart-broken, at Salerno, with the almost despairing words on his lips ; ' I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and therefore I die in exile ! ' But ' a spirit hath not flesh or bones,' as a body hath, and so it will not stay mangled and bruised. The victory lay, after all, with the combatant who could appeal to fanaticism as well as force. " — J. H. Allen, Chris- tian History in its Three Creat Periods : second period, pp. 69-73. — " Meanwhile, the Saxons had recognized Hermann of Ijuxemburg as their King, but in 1087 he resigned the crown; and another claimant, Eckbert, Margrave of Meissen, was murdered. The Saxons were now thoroughly weary of strife, and as years and bitter experi- ence had softened the character of Henry, they were the more willing to return to their alle- giance. Peace was therefore, for a time, restored in Germany. The Papacy did not forgive Henry. He was excommunicated several times, and in 1091 his son Conrad was excited to rebel against him. In 1104 a more serious rebellion was headed by the Emperor's second son Henry, who had been crowned King, on promising not to seize the government during his father's lifetime, in 1099. The Emperor was treated very cruelly, and had to sign his own abdication at Ingelheim in 1105. A last effort was made on his behalf by the Duke of Lotharingia; but worn out by his sorrows and struggles, Henry died in August, 1106. His body lay in a stone coffin in an unconsecrated chapel at Speyer for five years. Not till 1111, when the sentence of excommunication was re- moved, was it properly buried. Henry V. was not so obedient to the Church as the Papal party had hoped. He stoutly maintained the very point which had brought so much trouble on his father. The right of investiture, he declared, had always belonged to his predecessors, and he was not to give up what they had handed on to him. In 1110 he went to Rome, accompanied by a large army. Next 3'ear Pope Paschal II, was forced to crown him Emperor; but as soon as the Germans had crossed the Alps again Paschal renewed all his old demands. The struggle soon spread to Germany. The Emperor was excom- municated ; and the discontented princes, as eager as ever to break the royal power, sided with the Pope against him. Peace was not restored till 1133, when Calixtus II. was Pope. In that year, in a Diet held at Worms, both parties agreed to a compromise, called the Concordat of Worms. " — J. Sime, History of Germany, ch. 8. — "The long-desired reconciliation was effected in the form of the following concordat. The emperor renounced the right of investiture with the ring and crosier, and conceded that all bishoprics of the empire should be filled by canonical election and free consecration ; the election of the German bishops (not of the Italian and Burgundian) should be held in presence of the emperor; the bishops elect should receive investiture, but only 1474 GERMANY, A. D. 973-1122. The College of Electors. GERMANY, 1135-1272. of their fiefs and regalia, by the sceptre in Ger- many before, in Italy and in Burgundy after, their consecration ; for these grants they should promise fidelity to tlie emperor; contested elec- tions should be decided by the emperor in favour of him who should be considered by the pro- vincial synod to possess the better right. Finally he should restore to the Roman Church all the possessions and regalia of St. Peter. This con- vention secured to the Church many things, and above all, the freedom of ecclesiastical elections. Hitherto, the different Churches had been com- pelled to give their consent to elections that had been made by the king, but now the king was pledged to consent to the elections made by the Churches; and although these elections took place in his presence, he could not refuse his con- sent and investiture without violating the treaty, in which he had promised that for the future elections should be according to the canons. This, and the great difference, that the king, when he gave the ring and crosier, invested the bishop elect with his chief dignity, namely, his bishopric, but now granted him by investiture with the sceptre, only the accessories, namely the regalia, was felt by Lothaire, the successor of Henry, when he required of pope Innocent II. the restoration of the right of investiture. Upon one important point, the homage which was to be sworn to the king, the concordat was silent. By not speaking of it, Calixtus seemed to toler- ate it, and the Roman see therefore permitted it, although it had been prohibited by Urban and Paschal. It is certain that Calixtus was as fully convinced as his predecessors, that the condition of vassals, to which bishops and abbots were re- duced by their oath of homage, could hardly be reconciled with the nature and dignity of the episcopacy, or with the freedom of the Church, but he perhaps foresaw, that by insisting too strongly upon its discontinuance, he might awaken again the unholy war, and without any hopes of benefit, inflict many evils upon the Church. Sometime later Adrian endeavoured to free the Italian bishops from the homage, instead of which, the emperor was to be content with an oath of fidelity : but Frederick I. would not re- nounce the homage unless they resigned the re- galia. The greatest concession made by the papal see in this concordat, was, that by its silence it appeared to have admitted the former pretensions of the emperors to take a part in the election of the Roman pontiff. ... In the fol- lowing year the concordat was ratified in the great council of three hundred bishops, the ninth general council of the Church, which was con- vened by Calixtus in Rome." — J. J. I. D&llinger, History of the Church, v. 3, jyp. 345-347.— See, also, Papacy: A. D. 1056-1122; Canossa; Rome: A. D. 1081-1084; and Saxony: A. D. 1073-1075. Also in ; A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory VII., Ik. 2. — Comte C. F. Montalembert, The Monks of the ^yest, bk. 19.— H. H. Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity, bk. 6-8. — W. R. W. Stephens, Hil- defrrand and His Times. — E. F. Henderson, Select Hist. Docs, of the Middle Ages, bk. 4. A. D. iioi. — Disastrous Crusade under Duke Welfof Bavaria. See Crusades: A. D. 1101-1103. A. D. 1125. — Election of Lothaire II., King, afterwards Emperor. A. D. 1 125-1272. — The rise of the College of Electors. — The election of Lothaire II., in 1125, when a great assembly of nobles and church dignitaries was convened at Mentz, and when certain of the chiefs made a selection of candi- dates to be voted for, has been regarded by some historians — Hallam, Comyn and Dunham, for example — as indicating the origin of the German electoral college. They have held that a right of " pretaxation," or preliminary choice, was gradually acquired by certain princes, which grew into the finally settled electoral right. But this view is now looked upon as more than questionable, and is not supported by the best authorities. " At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 3 ?J we meet for the first time the fully de- veloped college of electors as a single electoral body ; the secondary matter of a doubt regard- ing what individuals composed it was definitely settled before Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of electors develop itself? . . . The problem is made more difficult at the outset from the fact that in the older form of government in Germany there can be no ques- tion at all of a simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which had happened to come to the throne : it was only a right of selection from among the heirs available within this family. Inasmuch now as such selection could — as well from the whole charac- ter of German kingship as in consequence of its amalgamation with the empire — take place al- ready during the lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die out during many generations, the right came to be at last almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of those who had the right of election, would, already- during his lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs, — if possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after the ex- tinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years 1135, 1138 and 1152. Neces- sarily the element of election now predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at elections been handed down from the past ? The very principle of election having been disregarded in the natural course of events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of procedure should also come to be half forgotten 1 And had not in the meantime social readjustments in the elec- toral body so disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make it seem entirely antiquated? AVith these questions the electoral asseniblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year 1138 were brought face to face, and they found that practically only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have been the former customary mode of elections which provided that the archbishop of Mainz as chan- cellor of the empire should first solemnly an- nounce the name of the person elected and the electors present should do homage to the new king. This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the material part of the election, on the other hand, the part that preceded this announcement, they found an ap- parently new expedient A committee was to U75 GERMANY, 1135-127 The College of Electors. GERMANY, 1125-1372. draw up an agreement as to the person to be chosen ; in the two cases iu question the manner of constituting tliis committee differed. Some- thing essential had now been done towards es- tablishing a mode of procedure at elections which should accord with the changed circum- stances. One case however had not been pro- vided for in these still so informal and uncertain regulations ; the case, namely, that those taking part in the election could come to no agreement at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 13th century ? Up till then double elections had absolutely never taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198, however, this con- tingency arose ; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV. were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of choice that in 11.52 had still been counted on as a matter of course did not come about. As a consequence questions with regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one : can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a ma- jority of the votes obtained ? And in connec- tion with it this other : who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote ? Even though men were inclined now to answer the first ques- tion in the affirmative, the second, the presup- position for the practical application of the prin- ciple that had been laid down iu the first, oflFcred all the greater difficulties. Should one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after the development since 1180 of a more circum- scribed class of princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower electoral committee ? Did this have a right to elect exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a cer- tain precedence when the election was being dis- cussed ? And how were the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below this elec- toral committee ? These are questions which the German electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did the pope. Innocent III., whom they had called upon to investigate the double election of the year 1198. . . . He speaks repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated ex- pressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole matter of having two kings, at the begin- ning of the 13th century, gave men iu German}' cause for reflection with regard to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms of the empire. One of the most important results of this reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given by the Sachsenspiegel. whicli was compiled about 1230. Eike von Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging to this committee certain particular princes : the three Rhenish arch- bishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and — his right being questionable indeed — the king of Bohemia. ... So far, at all events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the electors seem to have advanced towards its solu- tion by the year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But side by side with this view the old theory still held its own, that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the election. Under Emperor Frederick II., for instance, it was still energetically up- held. A decision one way or the other could only be reached according to the way in which the next elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the first ' priest-king' (Pfaffenkonig). The second 'priest- king ' was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were bishops ; among them, in full force, the arch- bishops of the Rhine. Present were also many counts. But William caused himself still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also not behindhand in acknowl- edging him — that, too, with special empliasis. What transpired at the double election of Al- phonse and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia ; Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes also took part, — according to the popular view by assenting, according to their own view, in part at least, by actually electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these elections is clear enough. The general right of election of the princes dis- appears almost altogether ; a definite electoral college, which was looked upon as possessing almost exclusively the sole right of electing, conies into prominence, and the component parts which made it up correspond in substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in the year 1257 is not established firmly and com- pletely and in all directions, stands there as in- controvertible at the election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect ; all share of others in the election is done away with. Al- though in place of Ottocar of Bohemia, who was at war with Rudolph, Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote, yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most important revolutions in the German form of government was herewith ac- complished. From among the aristocratic class of the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to the king. Uncon.sciously, as it were, had it come into being, not exactly desired by any one as a whole, nor yet the result of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a national point of view it denotes progress ; henceforward at elections the danger of ' many heads many minds ' was avoided ; the era of double elections was practically at an end." — K. Laniprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (trans, from the Oerman), v. 4, pp. 23-28.— In 1356 the Margraf of Branden- burg was recognized in the Golden Bull as one 1476 GERMANY, 1135-1273. Causes nf GERMANY, 12-13TH CENTURIES. Disintegration. of the Kurf firsts, — that is as " one of the Seven who have a right ... to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called Kur Princes, Kurfilrste, or Electors. . . . Flirst (Prince) I suppose is equivalent originally to our noun of number, ' First.' The old verb ' kieren' (participle ' erkoren' still in use, not to mention 'Val-kyr' and other instances) is essentially the same word as our 'choose,' being written ' kiesen' as well as 'kieren.' Nay, say the etymologists, it is also written ' Kussen' (' to kiss,' — to choose with such emphasis !), and is not likely to fall ob- solete in that form. — The other Six Electoral Dignitaries, who grew to Eight by degrees, and may be worth noting once by the readers of this book, are: 1. Three Ecclesiastical, Mainz, Coin, Trier (Mentz, Cologne, Treves), Archbishops all. ... 2. Three Secular, Sachsen, Pfalz, Bohmen (Saxony, Palatinate, Bohemia) ; of which the last, Bohmen, since it fell from being a kingdom in itself, to being a province of Austria, is not very vocal in the Diets. These Six, with Branden- burg, are the Seven Kurfiirsts in old time : Scp- temvirs of the Country, so to speak. But now Pfalz, in the Thirty-Years War (under our Prince Rupert's Father, whom the Germans call the 'Winter-King'), got abrogated, put to the ban, so far as an indignant Kaiser could ; and the vote and Kur of Pfalz was given to his Cousin of Baiern (Bavaria), — so far as an indignant Kaiser could [see Gkum-^nt: A. D. 1631-1623]. How- ever, at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it was found incompetent to any Kaiser to abrogate Pfalz, or the like of Pfalz, a Kurfi'irst of the Empire. So, after jargon inconceivable, it was settled. That Pfalz must be reinstated, though with territories much clipped, and at the bottom of the list, not the top as formerly ; and that Baiern, who could not stand to be balked after twenty-years possession, must be made Eighth Elector [see Germ.\ny : A. D. 1648]. The Ninth, we saw (Year 1693), was Gentleman Ernst of Hanover [see Germ.\ny : A. D. 1648-170,5]. There never was any Tenth." — T. Carlyle, Fred- erick the Orcat, bk. 3, ch. 4. — " All the rules and requisites of the election were settled bv Charles the Fourth in the Golden Bull [A. D. 13.56 — see below: A. D. 1347-1493], thenceforward a fun- damental law of the Empire." — J. Bryce, The Holy RiiniDi Empire, eh. 14. i2-i3th Centuries. — Causes of the Disinte- gration of the Empire. — "The whole differ- ence between French and German constitutional history can be summed up in a word : to the ducal power, after its fall, the crown fell heir in France ; the lesser powers, which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the same, the results were different : in France centraliza- tion, in Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion [see Saxony: A. D. 1178-1183], who refused military service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lom- bards. . . . The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away his duchy to be- stow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia, went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different margraves were com- pletely freed from the last remnants of depen- dence that might have continued to exist. In 14 the intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords came to be directly vmdcr the em- peror without a trace of an intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot, imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an honorary distinc- tion above other counts and lords. What hap- pened here had already begun to take place in the other duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from it of Austria ; sooner or later the same process came about in all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or subject to them gained everywhere an increase of power ; partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary distinc- tion by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct dependence on the empire. . . . Such was the origin of the idea of territorial supremacy. The ' dominus terras ' comes to feel himself no longer as a person com- missioned by the emperor but as lord in his own land. ... As to the cities, behind their walls, remnants of old Germanic liberty had been pre- served. Especially in the residences of the bish- ops had artisans and merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic community. . . . The burghers could find no better way to show their independence of the princes than that the community itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a monarchical, the former a republican form of government. . . . Itisanatiual question to ask, on the whole, when this new formation of terri- tories was completed. . . . The question ought really only to be put in a general way : at what period in German history is it an established fact that there are in the empire and under the em- pire separate territorial powers (principalities and cities) ? As such a period we can designate approximately the end of the 13th and beginning of the 13th centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial power and of terri- torial power is an established fact and the mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal history of later times. . . . The last ruler who had spread abroad the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all, and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a century not one succeeded in making himself generally recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the terri- torial powers. Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum. . . . Rudolph of Hapsburg and his successors, chosen from the most different houses and pursuing the most different policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make per- manent concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain itself from one moment to another ; on the other hand it finds no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its 77 GERMANY, 12-13TH CENTURIES. The Hohenstnufen dynasty. GERMANY, 1138-1268. own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by .giving them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing to- gether a dynastic appanage to gain for them- selves an influential position: this is no policy that wavers between conceding and maintaining. . . The crown can only keep its place above the territories by first recognizing the territorial powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial power by creating for itself the means of upholding its rights. . . . The next great step in the onward progress of the territorial power was the codification of the privileges which the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the ' Golden Bull' only the one provision is gen- erally known, that the seven electors shall choose the emperor ; yet so completely does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that for the most part it did not create a new system of legislation, but only sanctioned what already existed. But for the position of all the princes it was signifi- cant enough that the seven most considerable among them were granted an independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to attain. . . . This movement was greatly furthered when on the threshbold of modern times the burning question of church reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor, was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary excesses. . . . The mightiest intellectual move- ment of German history found at last its only political mainstay in the territories. . . . This whole development, finally, found its political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed expressly that all territories should retain their rights, especially the right of making alliances among themselves and' with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Here- with the territories were proclaimed . . . states under the empire." — I. Jastrow, OeschicMe der deutschen Einheitstraum vnd seiner Erfulliing (tni IIS. from the German), jip. 30-37. A. D. 1 138-1268. — The house of Suabia, or the Hohenstaufen.— Its struggles in Germany and Italy, and its end. — The Factions of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.— Frederick Barba- rossa and Frederick the Second. — On the death of Henry V., in 1125, the male line of the house of Franconia became extinct. Frederick, duke of Suabia, and his brother Conrad, duke of the Franks, were grandchildren of Henry IV. on their mother's side, and, inheriting the patri- monial estates, were plainly the heirs of the crown, if the crown was to be recognized as hereditary and dynastic. But jealousy of their house and a desire to reassert the elective de- pendence of the imperial office prevailed against their claims and their ambition. At an election which was denounced as irregular, the choice fell upon Lothaire of Saxony. The old imperial family was not only set aside, but its bitterest enemies were raised over it. "The consequences wore a feud and a struggle which grew and widened into the long-lasting, far-reaching, his- torical conflict of Guelfs and Ghibellines (see Guelfs and Ghibellines; also, Saxony: Dis- solution OF THE old Ducht). The Saxon em- peror Lothaire found his strongest support in the great "WOlf, Welf, or Guelf nobleman, Henry the Proud, duke of Bavaria, to whom he (Lothaire) now gave his daughter in marriage, together with the dukedom of Saxony, and whom he in- tended to make his successor on the imperial throne. But the scheme failed. On Lothaire's death, in 1138, the partisans of the Suabian family carried the election of Conrad (the Cru- sader — see Crusades: A. D. 1147-1149), and the dynasty most commonly called Hohenstaufen rose to power. It took the name of Hohenstaufen from its original family seat on the lofty hill of Staufen, in Suabia, overlooking the valley of the Rems. Its party, in the wars and factions of the time, received the name of the Waiblingen, from the birth-place of the Suabian duke Fred- erick — the little town of Waiblingen in Fran- conia. Under the tongue of the Italians, when these party names and war-cries were carried across the Alps, Waiblingen became Ghibelline and Welf became Guelf. During the first half century of the reign of the Hohenstaufen, the history of Germany is the history, for the most part, of the strife in which the Guelf dukes, Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, are the central figures, and which ended in the breaking up of the old powerful duchy of Saxony. But Italy was the great historical field of the energies and the ambitions of the Hohenstaufen emperors. There, Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick Redbeard, as the Italians called him), the second of the line, and Frederick II., his adventurous grandson, fought their long, losing battle with the popes and with the city-republics of Lombardy and Tuscany. — U. Balzani, The Popes and the Holienstaufen. — Frederick Barbarossa, elected Emperor in 1153, passed into Italy in 1154. "He came there on the invitation of the Pope, of the Prince of Capua, and of the toyvns which had been sub- jected to the ambition of Milan. He marched at the head of his German feudatories, a splendid and imposing array. His first object was to crush the power of Milan, and to exalt that of Pavia, the head of a rival league. Nothing could stand against him. At Viterbo he was compelled to hold the stirrup of the Pope, and in return for this submission he received the crown from the Pontiff's hands in the Basilica of St. Peter. He returned northwards by the valley of the Tiber, dismissed his army at Ancona, and with diflSculty escaped safely into Bavaria. His passage left little that was solid and durable be- hind it. He had effected nothing against the King of Naples. His friendship with the Pope was illusory and short-lived. The dissensions of the North, which had been hushed for a moment by his presence, broke out again as soon as his back was turned. He had, however, received the crown of Charles the Great from the hands of the successor of St. Peter. But Frederick was not a man to brook easily the miscarriage of his designs. In 1158 he collected another armyat Ulm. Brescia was quickly subdued ; Lodi, which had been destroyed by the Milanese, was rebuilt, and Milan itself was reduced to terms. This 1478 GERMANY, 1138-1268. Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II. GERMANY, 1138-1268. peace lasted but for a short time ; Milan revolted, and was placed under the ban of the Empire. The fate of Cremona taught the Milanese what they had to expect from the clemency of the Emperor. After a desultory warfare, regular siege was laid to the town. On March 1, 1162, Milan, reduced by famine, surrendered at discre- tion, and a fortnight later all the inhabitants were ordered to leave the town. The circuit of the walls was partitioned out among the most piti- less enemies of its former greatness, and the in- habitants of Lodi, of Cremona, of Pavia, of No- vara, and of Como were encouraged to wreak their vengeance on their defeated rival. For six days the imperial army laboured to overturn the walls and public buildings, and when the Em- peror left for Pavia, on Palm Sunday 1162, not a fiftieth part of the city was standing. This ter- rible vengeance produced a violent reaction. The homeless fugitives were received by their ancient enemies, and local jealousies were merged in common hatred of the common foe. Frederick had already been excommunicated by Pope Alex- ander III. as the supporter of his rival Victor. Verona undertook to be the public vindicator of discontent. Five years after the destruction of Milan the Lombard league numbered fifteen towns amongst its members. Venice, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso, Perrara, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Milan, Lodi, Piacenza, Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The confederation solemnly en- gaged to expel the Emperor from Italy. The towns on the frontier of Piedmont asked and ob- tained admission to the league, and to mark the dawn of freedom a new town was founded on the low marshy ground which is drained by the Bormida and the Tanaro, and which afterwards witnessed the victory of Marengo. It was named by its founders Alessandria, in honour of the Pope, who had vindicated their independence of the Empire. . . . The Lombard league had un- fortunately a very imperfect constitution. It had no common treasure, no uniform rules for the apportionment of contributions; it existed solely for the purposes of defence against the ex- ternal foe. The time was not yet come when self-sacrifice and self-abnegation could lay the foundations of a united Italy. Frederick spent six years in preparing vengeance. In 1174 he laid siege to the new Alexandria, but did not succeed in taking it. A severe struggle took place two years later. In 1176 a new army ar- rived from Germany, and on May 29 Frederick Barbarossa, was entirely defeated at Legnano. In 1876 the seventh hundred anniversary of the battle was celebrated on the spot where it was gained, and it is still regarded as the birthday of Italian freedom." — O. Browning, Ouelplis and Ohibellinea, cli. 1. — See, also, Italy: A. D. 1154- 1162 to 1174-1183.— "The end was that the Em- peror had to make peace with both the Pope and the cities, and in 1183 the rights of the cities were acknowledged in a treaty or law of the Em- pire, passed at Constanz or Constance in Swabia. In the last years of his reign, Frederick went on the third Crusade, and died on the way [see Cru- sades: A. D. 1188-1193]. Frederick was suc- ceeded by his son Henry the Sixth, who had al- ready been chosen King, and who in the next year, 1191, was crowned Emperor. The chief event of his reign was the conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily, which he claimed in right of his wife Constance, the daughter of the first King "Wil- liam. He died in 1197, leaving his son Frederick a young child, who had already been chosen King in Germany, and who succeeded as heredi- tary King in Sicily. The Norman Kingdom of ■ Sicily thus came to an end, except so far as it was continued through Frederick, who was de- scended from the Norman Kings through his mother. On the death of the Emperor Henry, the election of young Frederick seems to have been quite forgotten, and the crown was dis- puted between his uncle Philip of Swabia and Otto of Saxony. He was son of Henry the Lion, who had been Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, but who had lost the more part of his dominions in the time of Frederick Barbarossa. Otto's mother was Matilda, daughter of Henry the Second of England. . . . Both Kings were crowned, and, after the death of Philip, Otto was crowned Em- peror in 1209. But presently young Frederick was again chosen, and in 1230 he was crowned Emperor, and reigned thirty years till his death in 1250. This Frederick the Second, who joined together so many crowns, was called the Wonder of the World. And he well deserved the name, for perhaps no King that ever reigned had greater natural gifts, and in thought and learn- ing he was far above the age in which he lived. In his own kingdom of Sicily he could do pretty much as he pleased, and it flourished wonder- fully in his time. But in Germany and Italy he had constantly to struggle against enemies of all kinds. In Germany he had to win the support of the Princes by granting them pi-ivileges which did much to undermine the royal power, and on the other hand he showed no favour to tlie rising power of the cities. In Italy he had endless strivings with one Pope after another, with In- nocent the Third, Honorius the Third, Gregory the Ninth, and Innocent the Fourth ; as well as with the Guelfic cities, which withstood him much as they had withstood his grandfather. He was more than once excommunicated by the Popes, and in 1345 Pope Innocent the Fourth held a Council at L3'ons, in which he professed to depose the Emperor. More than one King was chosen in opposition to him in Germany, just as had been done in the time of Henry the Fourth, and there were civil wars all his time, both in Germany and in Italy, while a great part of the Kingdom of Burgundy was beginning to slip away from the Empire altogether." — E. A. Free- man, General Sketch of European Hist., ch. 11. — "It is probable that there never lived a human being endowed with greater natural gifts, or whose natural gifts were, according to the means afforded him by his age, more sedulously culti- vated, than the last Emperor of the House of Swabia. There seems to be no aspect of human nature which was not developed to the highest degree in his person. In versatility of gifts, in what we may call manysidedness of character, he appears as a sort of mediteval Alkibiad§s, while he was imdoubtedly far removed from Al- kibiadgs' utter lack of principle or steadiness of any kind. Warrior, statesman, lawgiver, scholar, there was nothing in the compass of the political or intellectual world of his age which he failed to grasp. In an age of change, when, in every corner of Europe and civilized Asia, old king- doms, nations, systems, were falling and new ones rising, Frederick was emphatically the man of change, the author of things new and unheard of — he was stupor muudi et immutator mirabilis. 1479 GERMANY, 1138-1268. Frederick 11. GERMANY, 1138-126 A suspected heretic, a suspected Mahometan, he was the subject of all kinds of absurd and self contradictory charges ; but the charges mark real features in the character of the man. He was something unlike any other Emperor or any other man. ... Of all men, Frederick the Second might have been expected to be the founder of something, the beginner of some new era, politi- cal or intellectual. He was a man to whom some great institution might well have looked back as its creator, to whom some large body of men, some sect or party or nation, might well have looked back as their prophet or founder or deliv- erer. But the most gifted of the sons of men has left behind him no such memory, while men whose gifts cannot bear a comparison with his are reverenced as founders by grateful nations, churches, political and philosophical parties. Frederick in fact founded nothing, and he sowed the seeds of the destruction of many things. His great charters to the spiritual and temporal princes of Germany dealt the death-blow to the Imperial power, while he, to say the least, looked coldly on the rising power of the cities and on those commercial Leagues which were in his time the best element of German political life. In fact, in whatever aspect we look at Frederick the Second, we find him, not the first, but the last, of every series to which he belongs. An English writer [Capgrave], two hundred years after his time, had the penetration to see that he was really the last Emperor. He was the last Prince in whose style the Imperial titles do not seem a mockery ; he was the last under whose rule the three Imperial kingdoms retained any practical connexion with one another and with the ancient capital of all, ... He was not only the last Emperor of the whole Empire ; he might almost be called the last King of its several King- doms. After his time Burgundy vanishes as a kingdom. . . . Italy too, after Frederick, van- ishes as a kingdom; any later exercise of the royal authority in Italy was something which came and went wholly by fits and starts. . . . Germany did not utterly vanish, or uttei'ly split in pieces, like the sister kingdoms; but after Frederick came the Great Interregnum, and after the Great Interregnum the royal power in Ger- many never was what it had been before. In his hereditary Kingdom of Sicily he was not ab- solutely the last of his dynasty, for his son Man- fred ruled prosperously and gloriously for some years after his death. But it is none the less clear that from Frederick's time the Sicilian Kingdom was doomed. . . . Still more conspicuously than all was Frederick the last Christian King of Jeru- salem, the last baptized man who really ruled the Holy Land or wore a crown in the Holy City. ... In the world of elegant letters Fred- erick has some claim to be looked on as the founder of that modern Italian language and lit- erature wliich first assumed a distinctive shape at his Sicilian court. But in the wider field of political history Frederick appears nowhere as a creator, but rather everywhere as an involuntary destroyer. . . . Under Frederick the Empire and everything connected with It seems to crumble and decay while preserving its external splen- dour. As soon as its brilliant possessor is gone, it at once falls asunder. It is a significant fact that one who in mere genius, in mere accomplish- ments, was surely the greatest prince who ever wore a crown, a prince who held the greatest place on earth, and who was concerned during a long reign in some of the greatest transactions of one of the greatest ages, seems never, even from his own flatterers, to have received that title of Great which has been so lavishly bestowed on far smaller men. . . . Many causes combined to produce this singular result, that a man of the extraordinary genius of Frederick, and possessed of every advantage of birth, office, and oppor- tunity, should have had so little direct effect upon the world. It is not enough to attribute his failure to the many and great faults of his moral character. Doubtless they were one cause among others. But a man who influences future ages is not necessarily a good man. . . . The weak side in the brilliant career of Frederick is one which seems to have been partly inherent in his character, and partly the result of the cir- cumstances in which he found himself. Capable of every part, and in fact playing every part by turns, he had no single definite object, pursued honestly and steadfastly, throughout his whole life. With all his powers, with all his brilliancy, his course throughout life seems to have been in a manner determined for him by others. He was ever drifting into wars, into schemes of policy, which seem to be hardly ever of his own choos- ing. He was the mightiest and most dangerous adversary that the Papacy ever had. But he does not seem to have withstood the Papacy from any personal choice, or as the voluntary champion of any opposing principle. He be- came the enemy of the Papacy, he planned schemes which involved the utter overthrow of Papacy, yet he did so simply because he found that no Pope would ever let him alone. . . . The most really successful feature in Frederick's career, his acquisition of Jerusalem [see Cru- sades: A. D. 1216-1229], is not only a mere epi- sode in his life, but it is something that was absolutely forced upon him against his will. . . . "With other Crusaders the Holy War was, in some cases, the main business of their lives; in all cases it was something seriously undertaken as a matter either of policy or of religious duty. But the Crusade of the man who actually did recover the Holy City Is simply a grotesque episode in his life. Excommunicated for not going, ex- communicated again for going, excommunicated again for coming back, threatened on every side, he still went, and he succeeded. What others had failed to win by arms, he contrived to win by address, and all that came of his success was that it was made the ground of fresh accusations against him. . . . For a man to influence his age, he must in some sort belong to his age. He should be above it, before it, but he should not be foreign to it. . . . But Frederick belongs to no age; intellectually he is above his own age, above every age ; morally it can hardly be denied that he was below his age ; but in nothing was he of his age." — E. A. Freeman, The Emperor Frederick the Second {Historical Essays, v. 1, Es- say 10). — For an account of Frederick's brilliant Sicilian court, and of some of the distinguishing features of his reign in Southern Italy, as well as of the end of his family, in the tragical deaths of his son Manfred and his grandson Conradin (1268), see It.\ly: A. D. 1183-1250. Also in: T. L. Kington, Hist, of Frederick the Second. — J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, eh. 10-13.— H. H. Milman, Hist, of Latin Chris- tianity, bk. 8, ch. 7, and bk. 9. 1480 GERMANY, 1143-1153. The great Interregnum. GERMANY, 1350-1373. A. D. 1142-1152. — Creation of the Elector- ate of Brandenburg. See Br.vndenedrg : A. D. 1143-1152. A. D. 1156. — The Margravate of Austria created a Duchy. See Austria: A. D. 805- 134G. A. D. 1180-1214. — Bavaria and the Palati- nate of the Rhine acquired by the house of Wittelsbach. See B.vvaiua: A. U. 1180-1356. A. D. 1196-1197. — The Fourth Crusade. See Crusades: A. D. 1196-1197. 13th Century. — The rise of the Hanseatic League. See IIansa Towts's. 13th Century. — Cause of the multiplication of petty principalities and states. — " AVliile the duchies and counties of Germany retained their original character of offices or governments, they were of course, even though considered as hereditary, not subject to partition among chil- dren. When they acquired the nature ot fiefs, it was still consonant to the principles of a feudal tenure that the eldest son should inherit accord- ing to the law of primogeniture ; an inferior pro- vision or api)anage, at most, being reserved for the younger children. The law of England fa- voured the eldest exclusively; that of France gave him great advantages. But in Germany a different rule began to prevail about the thir- teenth century. An equal partition of the in- heritance, without the least regard to priority of birth, was the general law of its piincipalities. Sometimes this was effected by undivided pos- session, or tenancy in common, the brothers re- siding together, and reigning jointly. This tended to preserve the integrity ot dominion; but as it was frequently incommodious, a more usual practice was to divide the territory. From such partitions are derived those numerous inde- pendent principalities of the same house, many of which still subsist in Germany. In 1589 there were eight reigning princes of the Palatine family ; and fourteen, in 1675, of that of Saxony. Origi- nally these partitions were in general absolute and without reversion; but, as their effect in weakening families became evident, a practice was introduced of making compacts of reciprocal succession, by which a fief was prevented from escheating to the empire, until all the male pos- terity of the first feudatory should be extinct. Thus, while the German empire survived, all the princes of Hesse or of Saxony had reciprocal contingencies of succession, or what our lawyers call cross-remainders, to each other's dominions. A different system was gradually adopted. By the Golden Bull of Charles IV. the electoral ter- ritory, that is, the particular district to which the electoral suffrage was inseparably attached, be- came incapable of partition, and was to descend to the eldest son. In the 15tli century the pres- ent house of Brandenburg set the first example of establishing primogeniture by law ; the princi- palities of Anspach and Bayreuth were dismem- bered from it for the benefit of younger branches ; but it was declared that all the other dominions of the family should for the future belong ex- clusively to the reigning elector. This politic measure was adopted in several other families; but, even in the 16th century, the prejudice was not removed, and some German princes de- nounced curses on their posterity, if they should introduce the impious custom of primogeniture. . . . Weakened by these subdivisions, the princi- palities of Germany in the 14th and 15th centu- ries shrink to a more and more diminutive size in the scale of nations." — H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, eh. 5 (». 2). — See, also, Cities, Imperiai, AND FREE, OF GeRMANT. A. D. I2I2.— The Children's Crusade. See Crusades: A. D. 1213. A. D. 1231-1315. — Relations of the Swiss Forest Cantons to the Empire and to the House of Austria. See Switzerland: The Three Forest Cantons. A. D. 1250-1272. — Degradation of the Holy Roman Empire. — The Great Interregnum. — Anarchy and disorder universal. — Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.— " With Frederick [the Second] fell the Empire. From the ruin that overwhelmed the greatest of its houses it emerged, living indeed, and destined to a long life, but so shattered, crijjpled, and degraded, that it could never more be to Europe and to Germany what it once had been. . . . The German king- dom broke down beneath the weight of the Roman Empire. To be universal sovereign Germany had sacrificed her own political existence. The neces- sity which their projects in Italy and disputes with the Pope laid the Emperors under of pur- chasing by concessions the support of their own princes, the ease with which in their absence the magnates could usurp, the difficulty which the monarch returning found in resuming the priv- ileges of his crown, the temptation to revolt and set up pretenders to the throne which the Holy See held out, these were the causes whose steady action laid the foundation of that territorial in- dependence which rose into a stable fabric at the era of the Great Interregnum. Frederick II. had, by two Pragmatic Sanctions, A. D. 1330 and 1232, granted, or rather confirmed, rights already cus- tomary, such as to give the bishops and nobles legal sovereignty in their own towns and terri- tories, except when the Emperor should be pres- ent; and thus his direct jurisdiction became re- stricted to his narrowed domain, and to the cities immediately dependent on the crown. With so much less to do, an Emperor became altogether a less necessary personage; and hence the seven magnates of the realm, now by law or custom sole electors, were in no haste to fill up the place of Conrad IV., whom the supporters of his father Frederick had acknowledged. AVilliam of Hol- land [A. D. 1254] was in the field, but rejected by the Swabian party : on his death a new 'election was called for, and at last set on foot. The arch- bishop of Cologne advised his brethren to choose some one rich enough to support the dignity, not strong enough to be feared by the electors: both requisites met in the Plantagenet Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of the English Henry III. He received three, eventually four votes, came to Germany, and was crowned at Aachen [A. D. 1256]. But three of the electors, finding that his bribe to them was lower than to the others, se- ceded in disgust, and chose Alfonso X. of Castile, who, shrewder than his competitor, continued to watch the stars at Toledo, enjoying the splen- dours of his title while troubling himself about it no further than to issue now and then a proclamation. Meantime the condition of Ger- many was frightful. The new Didius Julianus, the chosen of princes baser than the praetorians whom they copied, had neither the character nor the outward power and resources to make himself respected. Every floodgate of anarchy was opened: prelates and barons extended their 1481 GERMANY, 1250-1272. Rudolf of Hapsburg. GERMANY, 1273-1308. domains by war : robber-knights infested the high- ways and "the rivers: the misery of the weak, the tyranny and violence of the strong, were such as had not been seen for centuries. Tilings were even worse than under the Saxon and Franconian Emperors; for the petty nobles who had then been in some measure controlled by their dukes were now, after the extinction of the great houses, left without any feudal superior. Only in the cities was shelter or peace to be found. Those of 'the Rhine had already leagued themselves for mutual defence, and maintained a struggle in the interests of commerce and order against universal brigandage. At last, when Richard had been some time dead, it was felt that such things could not go on for ever : with no public law, and no courts of justice, an Emperor, the embodiment of legal government, was the only resource. The Pope himself, having now sufficiently improved the weakness of his enemy, found the disorgani- zation of Germany beginning to tell upon his revenues, and threatened that if the electors did not appoint an Emperor, he would. Thus urged, they chose,in 1373 [1273?], Rudolf, countof Haps- burg, founder of the house of Austria. From this point there begins a new era. We have seen the Roman Empire revived in A. D. 800, by a prince whose vast dominions gave ground to his claim of universal monarchy; again erected, in A. D. 962, on the narrower but firmer basis of the German kingdom. We have seen Otto the Great and his successors during the three following cen- turies, a line of monarchs of unrivalled vigour and abilities, strain every nerve to make good the pretensions of their office against the rebels in Italy and the ecclesiastical power. Those efforts had now failed signally and hopelessly. Each successive Emperor had entered the strife with resources scantier than his predecessors, each had been more decisively vanquished by the Pope, the cities, and the princes. The Roman Empire might, and, so far as its practical utility was con- cerned, ought now to have been suffered to ex- pire; nor could it have ended more gloriously than with the last of the Hohenstaufen. That it did not so expire, but lived on 600 years more, tUl it became a piece of antiquarianism hardly more venerable than ridiculous — till, as Voltaire said, all that could be said about it was that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire — was owing partly indeed to the belief, still un- shaken, that it was a necessary part of the world's order, yet chiefly to its connection, which was by this time indissoluble, with the German king- dom. The Germans had confounded the two characters of their sovereign so long, and had grown so fond of the style and pretensions of a dignity whose possession appeared to exalt them above the other peoples of Europe, that it was now too late for them to separate the local from the universal monarch. If a German king was to be maintained at all, he must be Roman Em- peror; and a German king there must still be. . . . That head, however, was no longer what he had been. The relative position of Germany and France was now exactly the reverse of that which they had occupied two centuries earlier. Ru- dolf was as conspicuously a weaker sovereign than Philip III. of France, as the Franconian Emperor Henry III. had been stronger than the Capetian Philip I. In every other state of Eu- rope the tendency of events had been to central- ize the administration and increase the power of the monarch, even in England not to diminish it. in Germany alone had political union become weaker, and tlie independence of the princes more confirmed. " — J. Bryce, T/ie Holy Roman Empire, ch. 13.— See, also, It.ua': A. D. 1250-1530. A. D. 1273-1308. — The first Hapsburg kings of the Romans, Rodolph and Albert. — The choice made (A. D. 1273) by the German Electors of Rodolph of Hapsburg for King of the Ro- mans (see Austria: A. D. 1246-1282), was duly approved and confirmed by Pope Gregory X., who silenced, by his spiritual admonitions, the rival claims of King Alfonso of Castile. But Rodolph, to secure this papal confirmation of his title, found it necessary to promise, through his ambassadors, a renewal of the Capitulation of Otho IV., respecting the temporalities of the Pope. This he repeated in person, on meeting the Pope at Lausanne, in 1275. On that occasion, "an agreement was entered into which after- wards ratified to the Church the long disputed gift of Charlemagne, comprising Ravenna, Emilia, Bobbio, Cesena, Forumpopoli, Forli, Faenza, Imola, Bologna, Ferrara, Comacchio, Adria, Ri- mini, Urbino, Monteferetro, and the territory of Bagno. Rodolph also bound himself to protect the privileges of the Church, and to maintain the freedom of Episcopal elections, and the right of appeal in all ecclesiastical causes ; and having stipulated for receiving the imperial crown in Rome he promised to undertake an expedition to the holy land. If Rodolph were sincere in these last engagements, the disturbed state of his Ger- man dominions afforded him an apology for their present non-fulfilment : but there is good reason for believing that he never intended to visit either Rome or Palestine ; and his indifference to Italy has even been the theme of panegyric with his admirers. The repeated and mortifying re- verses of the two Frederics were before his eyes; there was little to excite his sympathy with the Italians ; and tliough Lombardy seemed ready to acknowledge his supremacy, the Tuscan cities evinced aspirations after Independence." Dur- ing the early years of Rodolph's reign he was em- ployed in establishing his authority, as against the contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia, and the Duke of Bavaria (see Austria: A. D. 1246-1282). Meantime, Gregory X. and three short-lived successors in the papal office passed awa3% and Nicholas III. had come to it (1377). That vigorous pontiff called Rodolph to account for not having yet surrendered the states of the Church in due form, and whispered a hint of ex- communication and interdict. ' ' Rodolph was too prudent to disregard this admonition: he evaded the projected crusade and journey to Rome ; but he took care to send thither an emis- sary, who in his name surrendered to the Pope the territory already agreed on. . . . During his entire reign Rodolph maintained his indifference towards Italy. " His views ' ' were rather directed to the wilds of Hungary and Germany than to the delicious regions of the south. ... He com- pelled Philip, Count of Savoy, to surrender Morat, Payerne, and Guminen, which had been usurped from the Empire. By a successful ex- pedition across the Jura, he brought back to obedience Otho IV. Count of Burgundy; and forced him to renounce the allegiance he had proffered to Philip III. King of France. . . . He crushed an insurrection headed by an impos- tor, who had persuaded the infatuated multitude 1482 GERMANY, 1373-1308. Henry of Luxemburg. GERMANY, 1308-1313. to believe that he was the Emperor Frederic II. And he freed his dominions from rapine and desolation by the destruction of several castles, whose owners infested the country with their predatory incursions." Before his death, in 1391, Rodolph ' ' grew anxious to secure to his son Albert the succession to the throne, and his nomination by the Electors ere the grave closed upon himself. . . . But all his entreaties were unavailing; he was coldly reminded that he himself was still the 'King,' and that the Empire was too poor to support two kings. Rodolph might now repent his neglect to assume the imperial crown: but the character of Albert seems to have been the real obstacle to his elevation. With many of the great qualities of his father, this prince was de- ficient in his milder virtues; and his personal bravery and perseverance were tainted with pride, haughtiness, and avarice." On Rodolph's death, the Electors chose for his successor Adolphus, Count of Nassau, a choice of which they soon found reason to repent. By taking pay from Edward I. of England, for an alliance with the latter against the King of France, and by at- tempts to enforce a purchased claim upon the Landgraviate of Thuringia, Adolphus brought himself into contempt, and in 1298 he was sol- emnly deposed by the Electors, who now con- ferred the kingship upon Albert of Austria whom they had rejected six years before. "The de- posed sovereign was, however, strongly sup- ported ; and he promptly collected his adherents, and marched at the head of a vast army against Albert, who was not unprepared for his recep- tion. A. great battle took place at Gelheim, near "Worms; and, after a bloody contest, the troops of Adolphus were entirely defeated," and he himself was slain. But Albert, now unopposed ia Germany, found his title disputed at Rome. Boniface VIII., the most arrogant of all popes, refused to acknowledge the validity of his elec- tion, and drove him into a close alliance with the Pope's implacable and finally triumphant enemy, Philip IV. of France (see P.\pact: A. D. 1294- 1348). He was soon at enmity, moreover, with a majority of the Electors who had given the crown to him, and they, stimulated by the Pope, were preparing to depose him, as they had de- posed Adolphus. But Albert's energy broke up their plans. He humbled their leader, the Arch- bishop-Elector of Mentz, and the rest became submissive. The Pope now came to terms with him, and invited him to Rome to receive the im- perial crown ; also offering to him the crown of France, if he would take it from the head of the excommunicated Philip; but while these pro- posals were under discussion, Boniface suffered humiliations at the hands of the French king which caused his death. During most of his reign, Albert was busy with undertakings of ambition and rapacity which had no success. He attempted to seize the counties of Holland, Zealand, and Friesland, as fiefs reverting to the crown, on the death of John, Count of Holland, in 1299. He claimed the Bohemian crown in 1306, when Wenceslaus V. , the young king, was assassinated, and invaded the country ; but only to be beaten back. He was defeated at Lucka, in 1308, when attempting to grasp the inheri- tance of the Landgrave of Thuringia — under the very transaction which had chiefly caused his predecessor Adolphus to be deposed, and he him- lelf invested with the Roman crown. Finally, he was in hostilities with the Swiss Forest Can- tons, and was leading his forces against them, in May, 1308, when he was assassinated by several nobles, including his cousin John, whose enmity he had incurred.— Sir R. Comyn, Hist, of the Western Empire, ch. 14-17 («. 1). Also in : W. Coxe, Hist, of the House of Aus- tria, ch. 5 (v. 1). A. D. 1282. — Acquisition of the duchy of Austria by the House of Hapsburg. See Aus- tria: A. D. 134(3-1283. A. D. 1308-1313.— The reign of Henry of Luxemburg. — The king (subsequently crowned emperor) chosen to succeed Albert was Count Henry of Luxemburg, an able and excellent prince. The new sovereign was crowned as Henry VH. "Henry did not make the extension of his private domains his object, yet favoring fortune brought it to him in the largest measure. Since the death of Wenzel III., the succession to the throne of Bohemia had been a subject of constant struggles. A very small party was in favor of Austria; but the chief power was in the hands of Henry of Carinthia, husband of Anna, AVenzel's eldest daugliter. But he was hated by the people, whose hopes turned more and more to Elizabeth, a younger daughter of Wenzel; though she was kept in close confinement by Henry, who was about to marry her, it was sup- posed, below her rank. She escaped, fled to the emperor, and implored his aid. He gave her in marriage to his young son John, sending him to Bohemia in charge of Peter Aichspalter, to take possession of the kingdom. He did so, and it remained for more than a century in the Luxem- burg family. This King John of Bohemia was a man of mark. His life was spent in the cease- less pursuit of adventure — from tournament to tournament, from war to war, from one enter- prise to another. We meet him now in Avignon, and now in Paris; then on the Rhine, in Prussia, Poland, or Hungary, and then prosecuting large plans in Italy, but hardly ever in his own king- dom. Yet his restless activity accomplished very little, apart from some important acquisitions in Silesia. Henry then gave attention to the public peace ; came to an understanding with Leopold and Frederick, the proud sons of Albert, and put under the ban Everard of Wirtemberg, long a fomenter of disturbances, sending against him a strong imperial army. ... At the Diet of Spires, in September, 1309, it was cheerfully resolved to carry out Henry's cherished plan of reviving the traditional dignity of the Roman emperors by an expedition to the Eternal City. Henry expected thus to renew the authority of his title at home, as well as in Italy, where, in the tradi- tional view, the imperial crown was as impor- tant and as necessary as in Germany. Every thing here had gone to confusion and ruin since the Hohenstaufens had succumbed to the bitter hostility of the popes. The contending parties still called themselves Guelphs and Ghibellines, though they retained little of the original char- acteristics attached to these names. A formal embassy, with Matteo Visconti at its head, in- vited Henry to Milan; and the parties every where anticipated his coming with hope. The great Florentine poet, Dante, hailed him as a saviour for distracted Italy. Thus, with the pope's approval, he crossed the Alps in the autumn of 1310, attended by a splendid escort of princes of the empire. The news of his 1483 GERMANY, 1308-1313. Lewis and Frederick. GERMANY, 1314-1347. approach excited general wonder and expectation, and liis reception at Milan in December was like a triumph. He was crowned King of Lombardy ■without opposition. But when, in the true im- perial spirit, he announced that he had come to serve the nation, and not one or another party, and proved liis sincerity by treating both parties alike, all whose selfish hopes were deceived con- spired against hira. Brescia endured a frightful siege for four months, showing that the national hatred of German rule still survived. At length a union of all his adversaries was formed under King Robert of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, who put Conradin to death. Mean- while Henry VII. went to Rome, May 1312, and received the crown of the Coesars from four car- dinals, plenipotentiaries of the pope, in the church of St. John Lateran, south of the Tiber, St. Peter's being occupied by tlie Neapolitan troops. But many of his German soldiers left him, and he retired, with a small army, to Pisa, after an unsuccessful effort to take Florence. From the faithful city of Pisa he proclaimed King Robert under the ban, and, in concert with Frederick of Sicily, prepared for war by land and sea. But the pope, now a mere tool of the King of France, commanded an armistice; and when Henry, in an independent spirit, hesitated to obey, Clement V. pronounced the ban of the Church against him. It never reached the emperor, who died suddenly in the monastery of Buon-Convento: poisoned, as the German annalists assert, by a Dominican monk, in the sacramental cup, Au- gust 24, 1313. He was buried at Pisa. Mean- while his array in Bohemia had been completely successful in establishing King John on the throne." — C. T. Lewis, A Hist, of Germany, bk. 3, ch. 10.— See, also, Italy: A. D. 1310-1313. A. D. 1314-1347. — Election of rival emperors, Lewis (Ludowic) of Bavaria and Frederic of Austria.— Triumph of Lewis at the Battle of Miihldorf. — Papal interference and excommu- nication of Lewis. — Germany under interdict. — Unrelenting hostility of the Church. — "The death of Heinric [Henry] replunged Germany into horrors to which, since tlie e.xtinction of the Swabian line of emperors, it had been a stranger. Tlie Austrian princes, who had never forgiven the elevation of the Luxemburg famil}^, espoused the interests of Frederic, their head; the Bohemi- ans as naturally opposed them. From the acces- sion of John, the two houses were of necessity hostile ; and it was evident that there could be no peace in Germany until one of them was sub- jected to the other. The Bohemians, indeed, could not hope to place their king on the vacant throne, since their project would have found an insurmountable obstacle in the jealousy of the elec- tors ; but they were at least resolved to support the pretensions of a prince hostile to the Aus- trians. . . . The diet being convoked at Frank- fort, the electors repaired thither, but with very different views; for, as their suffrages were already engaged, while the more numerous party proclaimed the duke of Bavaria as Ludowic V", another no less eagerly proclaimed Frederic. Although Ludowic was a member of the Austro- Hapsburg family — his mother being a daughter of Rodolf I. — he had always been the enemy of the Austrian princes, and in the same degree the ally of the Luxemburg faction. The two candi- dates being respectively crowned kings of the Bomans, Ludowic at Aix-la-Chapelle, by the arclibishop of Mentz — Frederic at Bonn, by the metropolitan of Cologne, a civil war was inevit- able : neither had virtue enough to sacrifice hia own rights to the good of the state. . . . The contest would have ended in favour of the Aus- trians, but for the rashness of Frederic, who, in September 1322, without waiting for the arrivai' of his brother Leopold, assailed Ludowic between 3Iahldorf and Ettingeu in Bavaria. . . . The bat- tle was maintained with equal valour from the rising to the setting sun ; and was evidently in favour of the Austrians, when an unexpected charge in flank by a body of cavalry under the margrave of Nuremburg decided the fortune of the day. Heinric of Austria was first taken pris- oner ; and Frederic himself, who disdained to flee, was soon in the same condition. To his ever- lasting honour, Ludowic received Frederic with the highest assurances of esteem ; and though the latter was conveyed to the strong fortress of Trapnitz, in the Upper Palatinate, he was treated with every indulgence consistent with his safe custody. But the contest was not yet decided ; the valiant Leopold was still at the head of a sep- arate force; and pope John XXII., the natural enemy of the Ghibelins, incensed at some suc- cours which Ludowic sent to that party in Lom- bardy, excommunicated the king of the Romans, and declared him deposed from his dignity. Among the ecclesiastics of the empire this iniqui- tous sentence had its weight ; but had not other events been disastrous to the king, he might have safely despised it. By Leopold he was signally defeated ; he had the mortification to see the in- constant king of Bohemia join the party of Aus- tria ; and the still heavier misfortune to learn that the ecclesiastical and two or three secular electors were proceeding to another choice— that of Charles de Valois, whose interests were warmly supported by the pope. In this emergency, his only chance of safety was a reconciliation with his enemies ; and Frederic was released on condition of his renouncing ah claim to the empire. But though Frederic sincerely resolved to fulfil his share of tlie compact, Leopold and the other princes of his family refused ; and their refusal was approved by the pope. "With the magnanim- ity of his character, Frederic, unable to execute the engagements which lie had made, voluntarily surrendered himself to his enemy. But Ludowic, who would not be outdone in generosity, re- ceived him, not as a prisoner, but a friend. ' They ate,' says a contemporary writer, 'at the same table, slept on the same couch ; ' and when the King left Bavaria, the administration of that duchy was confided to Frederic. Two such men could not long remain even politically hostile; and by another treaty, it was agreed that they should exercise conjointly the government of the empire. Wlien this arrangement was condemned both by the pope and the electors, Ludowic pro- iwsed to take Italy as his seat of government, and leave Germany to Frederic. But the death [1326] of the war-like Leopold — the great support of the Austrian cause — and the continued opposi- tion of the states to any compromise, enabled Ludowic to retain the sceptre of the kingdom; and in 1329, that of Frederic strengthened his part}'. But his reign was destined to be one of troubles. . . . His open warfare against the heai of the church did not much improve his affairs, the vindictive pope, in addition to the former sentence, placing all Germany under an interdict. 1484 GERMANY, 131^1347. T)ie Golden Bull of Charles IV. GERMANY, 1347-1493. . . In 1338, the diet of Frankfort issued a dec- laration for ever memorable in the annals of free- dom. That the imperial authority depended on God alone; that the pope had no temporal in- fluence, direct or indirect, within the empire; ... it concluded by empowering the emperor (Ludowic while in Italy [see Italy: A. D. 1313- 1330] had received the imperial crown from the anti-poj^e whom he had created in opposition to John XXII.) to raise, of his own authority, the interdict which, during four years, had oppressed the country. Another diet, held the following year, ratified this bold declaration. . . . But this conduct of the diet was above the comprehension of the vulgar, who still regarded Ludowic as under the curse of God and the church. . . . Un- fortunately for the national independence, Ludo- wic himself contradicted the tenor of his hitherto spirited conduct, by mean submissions, by humili- ating applications for absolution. They were un- successful; and he had the mortitication to see the king of Bohemia, who had always acted an unaccountable part, become his bitter enemy. . . . From this moment the fate of Ludowic was de- cided. In conjunction with the pope and the French king, Charles of Bohemia, who in 1346 succeeded to his father's kingdom and antipathy, commenced a civil war; and in the midst of these troubled scenes the emperor breathed his last [October 11, 1347]. Twelve mouths before the decease of Ludowic, Charles of Bohemia [son of John, the blind king of Bohemia, who fell, fight- ing for the French, at the battle of Crecy], assisted by Clement VI., was elected king of the Romans." — S. A. Dunham, Hist, of the Oermanic Empire, bk. 1, ch. 4 (i). 1). Also in: J. I. von Dollinger, Studies in Euro- pean History, ch. 5. — -J. C. Robertson, Hist, of the Christian Church, bk. 8, ch. 3, «. 7.— M. Creigh- ton. Hist, of the Papacy durinrj the Period of the Reformation, introd., ch. 3. A. D. 1347-1493.— The Golden Bull of Charles IV. — The Luxemburg line of emper- ors, and the reappearance of the Hapsburgs. — The Holy Roman Empire as it was at the end of the Middle Ages. — "John king of Bo- hemia did not himself wear the imperial crown ; but three of his descendants possessed it, with less interruption than could have been expected. His son Charles IV. succeeded Louis of Bavaria in 1347 ; not indeed without opposition, for a double election and a civil war were matters of course in Germany. Charles IV. has been treated with more derision by his contemporaries, and consequently by later writers, than almost any prince in history ; yet he was remarkably suc- cessful in the only objects that he seriously pur- sued. Deficient in personal courage, insensible of humiliation, bending without sliame to the pope, to the Italians, to the electors, so poor and so little reverenced as to be arrested by a butcher at Worms for want of paj'ing his demand, Charles IV. affords a proof that a certain dex- terity and cold-blooded perseverance may occa- sionally supply, in a sovereign, the want of more respectable qualities. He has been re- proached with neglecting the empire. But he never deigned to trouble himself about the em- pire, except for his private ends. He did not neglect the kingdom of Bohemia, to which he almost seemed to render Germany a province. Bohemia had been long considered as a fief of the empire, and indeed could pretend to an elec- toral vote by no other title. Charles, however, gave the states by law the right of choosing a king, on the extinction of the royal family, which seems derogatory to the imperial prerogative. ... He constantly resided at Prague, where he founded a celebrated university, and embellished the city with buildings. This kingdom, aug- mented also during his reign by the acquisition of Silesia, he bequeathed to his son Wenceslaus, for whom, by pliancy towards the electors and the court of Rome, he had procured, against all recent example, the imperial succession. The reign of Charles IV. is distinguished in the con- stitutional history of the empire by his Golden Bull [1356] ; an instrument which finally ascer- tained the prerogatives of the electoral college [see above: A. D. 1125-1153]. The Golden Bull terminated the disputes which had arisen between different members of the same house as to their right of suffrage, which was declared inherent in certain definite territories. The number was ab- solutely restraiued to seven. The place of legal imperial elections was fixed at Frankfort; of coronations, at Aix-la-Chapelle ; and the latter ceremony was to be performed by the arch-bishop of Cologne. These regulations, though conso- nant to ancient usage, had not always been ob- served, and their neglect had sometimes excited questions as to the validity of elections. The dignity of elector was enhanced by the Golden Bull as highly as an imperial edict could carry it ; they were declared equal to kings, and conspiracy against their persons incurred the penalty of high treason. Many other privileges are granted to render them more completely sovereign within their dominions. It seems extraordinary that Charles should have voluntarily elevated an oli- garchy, from whose pretensions his predecessors had frequently suffered injury. But he had more to apprehend from the two great families of Bavaria and Austria, whom he relatively de- pressed by giving such a preponderance to the seven electors, than from anj' members of the college. By his compact with Brandenburg [see Brandenburg: A. D. 1168-1417] he had a fair prospect of adding a second vote to his own. . . . The next reign, nevertheless, evinced the danger of investing the electors w;ith such pre- ponderating authority. Wenceslaus [elected in 1378], a supine and voluptuous man, less re- spected, and more negligent of Germany, if pos- sible, than his father, was regularly deposed by a majority of the electoral college in 1400. . . . They chose Robert count palatine instead of Wenceslaus ; and though the latter did not cease to have some adherents, Robert has generally been counted among the lawful emperors. Upon his death [1410] the empire returned to the house of Luxemburg ; Wenceslaus himself waiving his rights in favour of his brother Sigismund of Hungary." On the death of Sigismund, in 1437, the house of Austria regained the imperial throne, in the person of Albert, duke of Austria, who bad married Sigismund's only daughter, the queen of Hungarj' and Bohemia. ' ' He died in two years, leaving his wife pregnant with a son, Ladislaus Posthumus, who afterwards reigned in the two kingdoms just mentioned ; and the choice of the electors fell upon Frederic duke of Styria, second-cousin of the last emperor, from whose posteritj' it never departed, except in a single in- stance, upon the extinction of his male line in 1740. Frederic III. reigned 53 years [1440-1493], 1485 GERMANY, 1347-1488. The Hohenzollems. GERMANY, 1417. a longer period than any of his predecessors; and his personal character was more insignificant. . . . Frederic, always poor, and scarcely able to protect himself in Austria from the seditions of his subjects, or the inroads of the king of Hun- gary, was yet another founder of his family, and left their fortunes incomparably more prosperous than at his accession. Tlie marriage of his son Maximilian with the heiress of Burgundy [see Netherlands: A. D. 1477] began that aggran- dizement of the house of Austria wliich Frederic seems to have anticipated. The electors, who had lost a good deal of their former spirit, and were grown sensible of the necessity of choosing a powerful sovereign, made no opposition to Maximilian's becoming king of the Romans in his father's lifetime." — H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, ch. 5 («. 2). — "It is important to remark that, for more than a century after Charles IV. had fixed his seat in Bohemia, no emperor ap- peared, endowed with the vigour necessary to uphold and govern the empire. The bare fact that Charles's successor, Wenceslas, was a pris- oner in the hands of the Bohemians, remained for a long time unknown in Germany : a simple decree of the electors sufficed to dethrone him. Rupert the Palatine only escaped a similar fate by death. When Sigismund of Luxemburg, (who, after many disputed elections, kept posses- sion of the field.) four years after his election, entered the territory of the empire of which he was to be crowned sovereign, he found so little sympatliy that he was for a moment inclined to return to Hungary without accomplishing the object of his journey. The active part he took in the affairs of Bohemia, and of Europe gener- ally, has given him a name ; but in and for the empire, he did nothing worthy of note. Between the years 1422 and 1430 he never made his ap- pearance beyond Vienna; from the autumn of 1431 to that of 1433 he was occupied with his coronation journey to Rome; and during the three years from 1434 to his death he never got beyond Bohemia and Moravia; nor did Albert II., who has been the subject of such lavish eulogy, ever visit the dominions of the empire. Frederic III. , however, far outdid all his prede- cessors. During seven-and-twenty years, from 1444 to 1471, he was never seen within the boun- daries of the empire. Hence it liappened that the central action and tlie visible manifestation of sovereignty, in as far as any such existed in the empire, fell to the share of the princes, and more especially of tlie prince-electors. In the reign of Sigismund we find them convoking the diets, and leading the armies into the field against the Hussites : tlie operations against the Bohemians were attributed entirely to them. In this man- ner the empire became, like the papacy, a power which acted from a distance, and rested chiefly upon opinion. . . . The emperor was regarded, in the first place, as the supreme feudal lord, who conferred on property its highest and most sacred sanction. . . . Although he was regarded as the head and source of all temporal jurisdic- tion, yet no tribunal found more doubtful obedi- ence than his own. The fact that royalty ex- isted in Germany had almost been suffered to fall into oblivion ; even the title had been lost. Henry VII. thought it an affront to be called King of Germany, and not, as he had a right to be called before any ceremony of coronation, King of the Romans. In the 15th century the emperor was regarded pre-eminently as the successor of the ancient Roman Ciesars, whose rights and digni- ties had been transferred, first to the Greeks, and tlien to the Germans in the persons of Charle- magne and Otho the Great ; as the true secular head of Christendom. . . . The opinion was con- fidently entertained in Germany that the other sovereigns of Christendom, especially those of England, Spain, and France, were legally subject to the crown of the empire : the only controversy was, whether their disobedience was venial, or ought to be regarded as sinful." — L. von Ranke. Hist, of the Reformation in Oermany, v. 1, pp. 52-56. Also m: Sir R. Comyn, Hist, of the Western Empire, ch. 24 (v. 1). — E. F. Henderson, Select Hist. Doc's of the Middle Ages, bk. 2, no. 10. — See, also, Austria: A. D. 1330-1364, to 1471- 1491. A. D. 1363-1364. — Tyrol acquired by the House of Austria, v(rith the reversion of the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary. See Austria : A. D. 1330-1364. A. D. 1378. — Final surrender of the Arelate to France. See Burgundy : A. D. 1127-1378. A. D. 1386-1388.— Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels. See Switzerland: A. D. 1386-1388. A. D. 1405-1434.— The Bohemian Reforma- tion and the Hussite wars. See Bohemia : A. D. 1405-1415, and 1419-1434. A. D. 1414-1418. — Failure of demands for Church Reform in the Council of Constance. See Pap.^cy: A. D. 1414-1418. A. D. 1417. — The Electorate of Branden- burg conferred on the Hohenzollems. — "The March of Brandenburg is one of those districts which was first peopled by the advance of the German nation towards the east during the twelftli and thirteenth centuries. It was in the beginning, like Silesia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia, and Livonia, a German colony settled upon an almost uncultivated soil : from the very first, however, it seems to have given the greatest promise of vigour. . . . Possession was taken of the soil upon the ground of the rights of the princely Ascanian house — we know not whether these rights were founded upon inheritance, pur- chase, or cession. The process of occupation was so gradual that the institutions of the old German provinces, like those constituting the nortliern march, had time to take firm root in the newly-acquired territory ; and owing to the con- stant necessity for unsheathing the sword, the colonists acquired warlike habits which tended to give them spirit and energy. . . . The As- canians were a warlike but cultivated race, in- cessantly acquiring new possessions, but gener- ous and openhanded ; and new life followed in their footsteps. They soon took up an important political position among the German princely houses: their possessions extended over a great part of Thuringia, Moravia, Lausitz, and Silesia; the electoral dignity wliich they assumed gave to them and to their country a high rank in the Empire. In the Neumark and in Pomerellen the Poles retreated before them, and on the Pome- ranian coasts they protected tlie towns founded by the Teutonic order from the invasion of the Danes. It has been asked whether this race miglit not have greatly extended its power ; but they were not destined even to make the attempt. It is said that at the beginning of the fourteenth 1486 GERMANY, 1417. Bundschuh insurrections. GERMANY, 1493-1519. century nineteen members of this family were assembled on the Margrave's Hill near Rathenau. In the year 1330, of all these not one remained, or had even left an heir. ... In Brandenburg ... it really appeared as if the e.xtinction of the ruling family would entail ruin upon the coun- try. It had formed a close alliance with the im- perial power — which at that moment was the subject of contention between the two great families of Wittelsbach and Lu.xemburg — was involved in the quarrels of those two races, injured by all their alternations of fortune, and sacrificed to their domestic and foreign policy, which was totally at variance with the interests of Brandenburg. At the very beginning of the struggle the March of Brandenburg lost its dependencies. ... At length the Emperor Sig- mund, the last of the house of Luxemburg, found himself so fully occupied with the disturbances In the Empire and the dissensions in the Church, that he could no longer maintain his power in the March, and intrusted the task to his friend and relation, Frederick, Burgrave of Niirnberg, to whom he lay under very great obligations, and who liad assisted him with money at his need. ... It was a great point gained, after so long a period of anarchy, to find a powerful and pru- dent prince ready to undertake the government of the province. He could do nothing in the open field against the revolted nobles, but he assailed and vanquished them in their hitherto impregnable strong-holds surrounded with walls fifteen feet thick, which he demolished with his clumsy but effective artillery. In a few years he had so far succeeded that he was able to proclaim a Landfriede, or public peace, accord- ing to which each and every one who was an enemy to him, or to those compreliended in the peace, was considered and treated as the enemy of all. But the effect of all this would have been but transient, had not the Emperor, who had no son, and who was won by Frederick's numerous services and by his talents for action, made the Electorate hereditary in his family. . . . The most important day in the history of the March of Brandenburg and the family of Zollern was the 18th of April, 1417, when in the market-place of Constance the Emperor Sigraund formally invested the Burgrave with the dignity of Elec- tor, placed in his hands the flag with the arms of the March and received from him the oath of allegiance. From this moment a prospect was afforded to the territory of Brandenburg of re- covering its former prosperity and increasing its importance, while to the house of Zollern a career of glory and usefulness was opened worthy of powers which were thus called into action." — L. von Ranke, Memoirs of the ITovse of Branden- burg, bk. 1, ch. 2. — See, also, BTt.^'NDENBtnRG: A. D. 1168-1417; and Hohenzollern, Rise of THE House of. A. D. 1467-1471. — Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia. See Bohemia: A. I). 14.')8-U71. A. D. 1467-1477. — Relations of Charles the Bold of Burgundy to the Empire. See Bur- gundy: A. D. 1467, and 1476-1477. A. D. 1492-1514. — The Bundschuh insurrec- tions of the Peasantry. — Several risings of the German peasantry, in the later part of the 15th and early part of the 16th century, were named from the Bundschuh, or peasants' clog, which the insurgents bore as their emblem or pictured on their banners. "While the peasants in the Rhoetian Alps were gradually throwing off the yoke of the nobles and forming the ' Graubund ' [see Switzerland: A. D. 1396-1499], a struggle was going on between the neighbouring peas- antry of Kerapten (to the east of Lake Constance) and their feudal lord, the Abbot of Kempten. It began in 1423, and came to an open rebel- lion in 1492. It was a rebellion against new demands not sanctioned by ancient custom, and though it was crushed, and ended in little good to the peasantry (many of whom fled into Switzerland), yet it is worthy of note because in it for the first time appears the banner of the Bundschuh. The next rising was in Elsass (Alsace), in 1493, the peasants finding allies in the burghers of the towns along the Rhine, who had their own grievances. The Bundschuh was again their banner, and it was to Switzerland that their anxious eyes were turned for help. This movement also was pre- maturely discovered and put down. Then, in 1501, other peasants, close neighbours to those of Kempten, caught the infection, and in 1503, again in Elsass, but this time further north, in the region about Speyer and the Neckar, lower down the Rhine, nearer Franconia, the Bund- schuh was raised again. It numlaered on its recruit rolls many thousands of peasants from the country round, along the Neckar and the Rhine. The wild notion was to rise in arms, to make themselves free, like the Swiss, by the sword, to acknowledge no superior but the Em- peror, and all Germany was to join the League. They were to pay no taxes or dues, and com- mons, forests, and rivers were to be free to all. Here, again, they mixed up religion with their demands, and ' Only what is just before God ' was the motto on the banner of the Bundschuh. They, too, were betrayed, and in savage triumph the Emperor Maximilian ordered their property to be confiscated, their wives and children to be banished, and themselves to be quartered alive. . . . Few . . . really fell victims to this cruel order of the Emperor. The ringleaders dispersed, fleeing some into Switzerland and some into the Black Forest. For ten years now there was silence. The Bundschuh banner was furled, but only for a while. In 1513 and 1513, on the east side of the Rhine, in the Black Forest and the neighbouring districts of Wurtemberg, the move- ment was again on foot on a still larger scale. It had found a leader in Joss Fritz. A soldier, with commanding presence and great natural eloquence, ... he bided his time. . . . Again the League was betrayed . . . and Joss Fritz, with the banner under his clothes, had to fly for his life to Switzerland. . . . He returned after a while to the Black Forest, went about his secret errands, and again bided his time. In 1514 the peasantry of the Duke Ulrich of Wiirtemberg rose to resist the tyranny of their lord [in a com- bination called ' the League of Poor Conrad ']. . . . The same year, in the valleys of the Aus- trian Alps, in Carinthia, Styria, and Crain, simi- lar risings of the peasantry took place, all of them ending in the triumph of the nobles. " — F. Seebohra. — T/ie Era of the Protestant Rexolution, pt. 1, ch. 4. — See, also, below: A. D. 1534-1525. A. D. 1493. — Maximilian I. becomes em- peror. A. D. 1493-1519. — The reign of Maximilian. — His personal importance and his imperial 1487 GERIVIANY, 1493-1519. Maximilian I. GERMANY, 1493-1519. powerlessness. — Constitutional reforms in the Empire. — The Imperial Chamber. — The Cir- cles. — The Aulic Council. — "Frederic [the Third] died in 1493, after a protracted and in- glorious reign of 53 years. ... On the death of his father, Maximilian had been seven years king of the Romans; and his accession to the im- perial crown encountered no opposition. . . . Scarcely had he ascended the throne, when Charles VIIL, king of France, passed through the Milanese into the south of Italy, and seized on Naples without opposition [see Italy: A. D. 1494^1496]. Maximilian endeavoured to rouse the German nation to a sense of its danger, but in vain. . . . With difficulty he was able to de- spatch 3,000 men to aid the league, which Spain, the pope, the Milanese, and the Venetians had formed, to expel the ambitious intruders from Italy. To cement his alliance with Fernando the Catholic, he married his son Philip to Juana, the daughter of the Spaniard. The confederacy tri- umphed ; not through the efforts of Maximilian, but through the hatred of the Italians to the Gallic yoke. . . . Louis XII., who succeeded to Charles (1498), . . . forced Philip to do homage for Flanders; surrendering, indeed, three incon- siderable towns, that he might be at liberty to renew the designs of his house on Lombardy and Naples. . . . The French had little difficulty in expelling Ludovioo Moro, the usurper of Milan, and in retaining possession of the country during the latter part of Maximilian's reign [see Italy ; A. D. 1499-1500]. Louis, indeed, did homage for the duchy to the Germanic head ; but such homage was merely nominal: it involved no tribute, no dependence. The occupation of this fine province by the French made no impression on the Germans ; they regarded it as a fief of the house of Austria, not of the empire : but even if it had stood in the latter relation, they would not have moved one man, or voted one florin, to avert its fate. That the French did not obtain similar possession of Naples, and thereby become en- abled to oppose Slaximiliau with greater effect, was owing to the valour of the Spanish troops, who retained the crown in the house of Aragon. His disputes with the Venetians were inglorious to his arms; they defeated his armies, and en- croached considerably on his Italian possessions. He was equally unsuccessful with the Swiss, whom he vainly persuaded to aclinowledge the supremacy of his house. . . . For many of his failures ... he is not to be blamed. To carry on his vast enterprises he could command only the resources of Austria: had he been able to wield those of the empire, his name would have been more formidable to his enemies; and it is no slight praise, that with means so contracted he could preserve the Netherlands against the open violence, no less than the subtle duplicity, of France. But the internal transactions of Maxi- milian's reign are those only to which the atten- tion of the reader can be directed with pleasure. In 1495 we witness the entire abolition of the right of diffidation [private warfare, see Land- priede], — a right which from time immemorial had been the curse of the empire. . . . The pass- ing of the decree which for ever secured the public peace, by placing under the ban of the empire, and fining at 2,000 marks in gold, every city, every individual that should hereafter send or accept a defiance, was nearly unanimous. In regard to the long-proposed tribunal [to take cognizance of all violations of the public tran- quillity], which was to retain the name of the Imperial chamber, Maximilian relaxed much from the pretensions of his father. ... It was solemnly decreed that the new court should con- sist of one grand judge, and of 16 assessors, who were presented by the states, and nominated by the emperor. . . . Though a new tribunal was formed, its competency, its operation, its sup- port, its constitution, the enforcement of its de- cisions, were left to chance ; and many successive diets — even many generations — were passed be- fore anything like an organised system could be introduced into it. For the execution of its decrees the Swabian league was soon employed ; then another new authority, the Council of Re- gency. . . . But these authorities were insufficient to enforce the execution of the decrees emanat- ing from the chamber ; and it was found neces- sary to restore the proposition of the circles, which had been agitated in the reign of Albert II. . . . Originally they comprised only — 1. Ba- varia, 2. Franconia, 3. Saxony, 4. the Rhine, 5. Swabia, and 6. Westphalia; thus excluding the states of Austria and the electorates. But this ex- clusion was the voluntary act of the electors, who were jealous of a tribunal which might encroach on their own privileges. In 1512, however, the opposition of most appears to have been removed ; for four new circles were added. 7. The circle of Austria comprised the hereditary dominions of that house. 8. That of Burgundy contained the states inherited from Charles the Rash in Franche- Comte and the Netherlands. 9. That of the Lower Rhine comprehended the three ecclesias- tical electorates and the Palatinate. 10. That of Upper Saxony extended over the electorate of that name and the march of Brandenburg. . . . Bohemia and Prussia . . . refused to be thus partitioned. Each of these circles had its internal organisations, the elements of which were pro- mulgated in 1512, but which was considerably improved by succeeding diets. Each had its he- reditary president, or director, and its hereditary prince convoker, both offices being frequently vested in the same individual. . . . Each circle had its military chief, elected by the local states, whose duty it was to execute the decrees of the Imperial Chamber. Generally this office was held by the prince director. . . . The establishment of the Imperial Chamber was . . . disagreeable to the emperor. To rescue from its jurisdiction such causes as he considered lay more peculiarly within the range of his prerogative, and to en- croach by degrees on the jurisdiction of this odious tribunal, Maximilian, in 1501, laid the foundation of the celebrated Aulic Council. But the competency of this tribunal was soon ex- tended : from political affairs, investitures, char- ters, and the niuuerous matters which concerned the Imj^erial chancery, it immediately passed to judicial crimes. . . . By an imperial edict of 1518, the Aulic Council was to consist of 18 mem- bers, all nominated by the emperor. Five only were to be chosen from the states of the empire, the rest from those of Austria. About half were legists, the other half nobles, but all dependent on their chief. . . . When he [Maximilian] la- boured to make this council as arbitrary in the empire as in Austria, he met with great opposi- tion. . . . But his purpose was that of encroach- ment no less than of defence ; and his example was so well imitated by his successors, that in 1488 GERMANY, 1493-1519. Beginning of the Reformation. GERMANY, 1517-1523. most cases the Aulic Council was at length ac- knowledged to have a concurrent jurisdiction with the Imperial Chamber, in many the right of prevention over its rival." — S. A. Dunham, Ilist. of the Germanic Empire, bk. 3, cJi. 1 ()'. 2).— "The received opinion which recognises in [Maximilian] the creative founder of the later constitution of the empire, must be abandoned. . . . He had not the power of keeping the princes of the em- pire together ; ... on the contrary, everything about him split into parties. It followed of necessity that abroad he rather lost than gained ground. . . . The glory which surrounds the memory of Maximilian, the high renown which he enjoyed even among his contemporaries, were therefore not won by the success of his enter- prises, but by his personal qualities. Every good gift of nature had been lavished upon him in profusion. . . . He was a man . . . formed to excite admiration, and to inspire enthusiastic at- tachment; formed to be the romantic hero, the exhaustless theme of the people. " — L. von Ranke, Hist, of the Reformation in Oermany, v. 1, pp. 379-381. Also in: The same, Hist, of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514, bk. 1, ch. 3, and bk. 2, ch. 2 and 4. — See, also, Austria: A. D. 1477-1495. A. D. 1496-1499. — The Swabianwar. — Prac- tical separation of the Swiss Confederacy from the Empire. See Switzerland: A. D, 1396-1499. A. D. 1508-1509. — The League of Cambrai against Venice. See Venice: A. D. 1508- 1509. A. D. 1513-1515. — The emperor in the pay of England. — Peace with France. See France : A. D. 1513-1515. A. D. 1516. — Abortive invasion of Milaness by Maximilian. See France: A. D. 1516- 1517. A. D. 1517-1523. — Beginning of the move- ment of Religious Reformation. — Papal Indul- gences, and Luther's attack on them. — "The Reformation, like all other great social convul- sions, was long in preparation [see Papacy : 15th -16th Centuries], It was one part of that general progress, complex in its character, which marked the . . . period of transition from the Middle Ages to modern civilization. . . . But while the Reformation was one part of a change extending over the whole sphere of human knowledge and activity, it had its own specific origin and significance. These are still, to some extent, a subject of controversy. . . . One of its causes, as well as one of the sources of its great power, was the increasing discontent with the prevailing corruption and misgovern- ment in the Church, and with papal interference in civil affairs. . . . The misconduct of the popes in the last half of the fifteenth century was not more flagrant than that of their prede- cessors in the tenth century. But the fifteenth century was an age of light. What was done by the pontiffs was not done in a corner, but under the eyes of all Europe. Besides, there was now a deep-seated craving, especially in the Teutonic peoples, who had so long been under the tutelage of a legal, judaizing form of Chris- tianity, for a more spiritual type of religion. . . . The Reformation may be viewed in two aspects. On the one hand it is a religious revo- lution affecting the beliefs, the rites, the ecclesi- 94 astical organization of the Church, and the form of Christian life. On the other hand, it is a great movement in which sovereigns and nations are involved; the occasion of wars and treaties; the close of an old, and the introduction of a new, period in the history of culture and civilization. Germany, including the Nether- lands and Switzerland, was the stronghold of the Reformation. It was natural that such a movement should spring up and rise to its highest power among a people in whom a love of inde- pendence was mingled with a yearning for a more spiritual form of religion than was encour- aged by mediaeval ecclesiasticism. Hegel has dwelt with eloquence upon the fact that while the rest of the world was gone out to America or to the Indies, in quest of riches and a domin- ion that should encircle the globe, a simple monk, turning away from empty forms and the things of sense, -nas finding him whom the disciples once sought in a sepulchre of stone. Unques- tionably the hero of the Reformation was Martin Luther. ... As an English writer has pointed out, Luther's whole nature was identified with his great work, and while other leaders, like Melancthon and even Calvin, can be separated in thought from the Reformation, 'Luther, apart from the Reformation, would cease to be Luther.' ... In 1517 John Tetzel, a hawker of indul- gences, the proceeds of wliich were to help pay for the building of St. Peter's Church, appeared in the neighborhood of Wittenberg. To per- suade the people to buy his spiritual wares, he told them, as Luther himself testifies, that as soon as their money clinked in the bottom of the chest the souls of their deceased friends forthwith went up to heaven. Luther was so struck with the enormity of this traffic that he determined to stop it. He preached against it, and on October 31, 1517, he posted on the door of the Church of All Saints, at Wittenberg, his ninety-five theses [for the full text of these, see Papacy: A. D. 1517], relating to the doctrine and practice of selling indulgences. Indulgences . . . were at first commutations of penance by the payment of money. The right to issue them had gradually become the exclusive prerogative of the popes. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being re- mitted or commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the pope or his agents, by a grant of indulgences, to remove the temporal or terminable penalties, which might extend into purgatory. For the benefit of the needy he could draw upon the treasury of merit stored up by Christ and the saints. Although it was expressly declared by Pope Sixtus IV., that souls are de- livered from purgatorial fires in a way analogous to the efficacy of prayer, and although contrition was theoretically required of the recipient of an indulgence, it often appeared to the people as a simple bargain, according to which, on payment of a stipulated sum, the individual obtained a full discharge from the penalties of sin, or pro- cured the release of a soul from the flames. Luther's theses assailed the doctrines which made this baneful traffic possible. . . . Unconsciously to their author, they struck a blow at the au- thority of Rome and of the priesthood. Luther had no thought of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman Church, Even his theses were only propositions, propounded for academic debate, according to the custom in mediaeval universities. He concluded them with the solemn declaration 1489 GERMANY, 1517-1523. Luther at the Diet of Worms. GERMANY, 1519. that he affirmed nothing, but left all to the judg- ment of the Church. . . . The theses stirred up a commotion all over Germany. ... A contro- versy arose between the new champion of reform and the defenders of indulgences. It was during this dispute that Luther began to realize that human authority was against him and to see the necessity of planting himself more distinctly on the Scriptures. His clear arguments and reso- lute attitude won the respect of the Elector of Saxony, who, though he often sought to restrain his vehemence, nevertheless protected him from his enemies. This the elector was able to do be- cause of his political importance, which became still greater when, after the death of Maximilian, he was made regent of Northern Germany." — G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, ■pp. 287-293. —"At first neither Luther, nor others, saw to what the contest about the indul- gences would lead. The Humanists believed it to be only a scholastic disputation, and Hutten laughed to see theologians engaged in a fight with each other. It was not till the Leipzig dis- putation (1519), where Luther stood forward to defend his views against Eck, that the matter assumed a grave aspect, took another turn, and after the appearance of Luther's appeals ' To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,' 'On the Babylonian Captivity,' and against Church abuses, that it assumed national importance. All the combustible materials were ready, the spark was thrown among them, and the flames broke out from every quarter. Hundreds of thousands of German hearts glowed responsive to the com- plaints which the Wittenberg monk flung against Papal Rome, in a language whose sonorous splen- dour and iron strength were now first heard in all the fulness, force, and beauty of the German idiom. That was an imperishable service ren- dered to his country by Luther. He wrote in German, and he wrote such German. The papal ban hurled back against him in 1520 was disregarded. He burnt it outside the gate of Wittenberg by the leper hospital, in the place where the rags and plague-stained garments of the lepers were wont to be consumed. The no- bility, the burghers, the peasants, all thrilled at his call. Now the moment had come for a great emperor, a second Charlemagne, to stand forward and regenerate at once religion and the empire. There was, however, at the head of the state, only Charles V., the grandson of Maximilian, a man weak where he ought to have been strong, and strong whei-e he ought to have been weak, a Spanish Burgundian prince, of Romance stock, who despised and disliked the German tongue, the tongue of the people whose imperial crown he bore, a prince whose policy was to combat France and humble it. It was convenient for him, at the time, to have the pope on his side, so he looked with dissatisfied eyes on the agitation in Germany. The noblest hearts among the princes bounded with hope that he would take the lead in the new movement. The lesser no- bility, the cities, the peasantry, all expected of the emperor a reformation of the empire politi- cally and religiously. . . . But all hopes were dashed. Charles V. as little saw his occasion as had Maximilian. He took up a hostile position to the new movement at once. He was, however, brought by the influential friends of Luther, among whom first of all was the Elector of Sax- ony, to hear what the reformer had to say for himself, before he placed him under the ban of the empire. Luther received the imperial safe- conduct, and was summoned to the Diet of Worms, there to d«fend himself. He went, not- withstanding that he was warned and reminded of the fate of Huss. ' I will go to Worms, ' said he, ' even were as many devils set against me as there are tiles on the roofs.' It was probably on this journey that the thoughts entered his mind which afterwards (1530) found their expression in that famous chorale, ' Eine feste Burg ist unser Gott,' which became the battle-song of Protes- tants. Those were memorable days, the 17th and 18th of April, 1521. in which a poor monk stood up before the emperor and all the estates of the empire, undazzled by their threatening splendour, and conducted his own case. At that moment when he closed his defence with the stirring words, ' Let me be contradicted out of Holy Scripture — till that is done I will not re- cant. Here stand I. I can do no other, so help me God, amen ! ' then he had reached the pinna- cle of his greatness. The result is well known. The emperor and his papal adviser remained un- moved, and the ban was pronounced against the heretic. Luther was carried off by his protector, the Elector of Saxony, and concealed in the Wartburg, where he worked at his translation of the Bible. . . . Brandenburg, Hesse, and Sax- ony declared in favour of reform. In 1523 Magdeburg, Wismar, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig, Riga, expelled the monks and priests, and ap- pointed Lutheran preachers. Nl'irnberg and Bres- lau hailed the Reformation with delight." — S. Baring-Gould, The Church in Oermaiiy, cJi. 18.— See Papacy: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1522- 1525. Also in : L. von Ranke, Hist, of the Reforma- tion in Oermany. — L. Hausser, The Period of the Reformation. — J. H. Merle d'Aubigne, Hist, of the Reformation. — M. J. Spaulding, Hist, of the Protestant Reformation. — F. Seebohm, The Era of the Protestant Revolution. — P. Bayne, Martin Luther. — C. Beard, Martin Lutfier and tlie Ref- ormation. — J. Kostlin, Life of Luther. A. D. 1519. — Contest for the imperial crovyn. — Three royal candidates in the field. — Elec- tion of Charles V., the Austro-Spanish mon- arch of many thrones. — In his last years, Maxi- milian made great efforts to secure the Imperial Crown for his grandson Charles, who had already inherited, through his mother Joanna, of Spain, the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and the Two Sicilies, and through his father, Philip of Austria, the duchy of Burgundy and the many lordships of the Netherlands. " In 1518 he obtained the consent of the majority of the electors to the Ro- man crown being bestowed on that [jrince. The electors of Treves and Saxony alone opposed the project, on the ground that, as Maximilian had never received the Imperial crown [but was styled Emperor Elect] he was himself still King of the Romans, and that consequently Charles could not assume a dignity that was not vacant. To obviate this objection, Maximilian pressed Leo to send the golden crown to Vienna ; but this plan was defeated by the intrigues of the French court. Francis, who intended to become a can- didate for the Imperial crown, intreated the Pope not to commit himself by such an act ; and while these negociations were pending, Maximilian died at Wels, in Upper Austria, January 13th 1519. . . . Three candidates for the Imperial crown 1490 GERMANY, 1519. Charles V, GERMANY, 1520-1531. appeared in the field : the Kiug.s of Spain, France, and England. Francis I. [of France] was now at tlie height of his reputation. His enterprises had hitherto been crowned with success, the popular testof abilit)% and the world accordingly gave him credit for a political wisdom which he was far from possessing. He appears to have gained three or four of the Electors by the lavish distri- bution of his money, which his agent, Bonnivet, was obliged to carry through Germany on the backs of horses ; for the Fuggers, the rich bank- ers of Augsburg, were in the interest of Charles, and refused to give the French any accommoda- tion. But the bought votes of these venal Elec- tors could not be depended on, some of whom sold themselves more than once to different parties. The infamy of Albert, Elector of Mentz, in these transactions, was particularly notorious. The chances of Henry VIII. [of England] were throughout but slender. Henry's hopes, like those of Francis, were chiefly founded on the cor- ruptibility of the Electors, and on the expectation that both his rivals, from the very magnitude of their power, might be deemed ineligible. Of the three candidates the claims of Charles seemed the best founded and the most deserving of suc- cess. The House of Austria had already fur- nished six emperors, of whom the last three had reigned eighty years, as if by an hereditary suc- cession. Charles's Austrian possessions made him a German prince, and from their situation consti- tuted him the natural protector of Germany against the Turks. The pi-evious canvass of Maximilian had been of some service to his cause, and all these advantages he seconded, like his competitors, by the free use of bribery. . . . Leo X., the weight of whose authority was sought both by Charles and Francis, though he seemed to favour each, desired the success of neither. He secretly advised the Electors to choose an emperor from among their own body; and as this seemed an easy solution of the difficulty, they unani- mously offered the crown to Frederick the AVise, Elector of Saxony. But Frederick magnani- mously refused it, and succeeded in uniting the suffrages of the Electors in favour of Charles; principally on the ground that he was the sover- eign best qualified to meet the great danger im- pending from the Turk. . . . The new Emperor, now in his 20th year, assumed the title of Charles V. ... He was proclaimed as ' Emperor Elect, ' the title borne by his grandfather, which he sub- sequently altered to that of ' Emperor Elect of the Romans,' a designation adopted by his succes- sors, with the omission of the word ' elect, ' do wn to the dissolution of the empire. " — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern Europe, bk. 3, ch. 3 {i\ 1). — On his elec- tion to the Imperial throne, Charles ceded to his younger brother, Ferdinand, all the German pos- sessions of the family. The latter, therefore, be- came Archduke of Austria, and the German branch of the House of Austria was continued through him ; while Charles himself became the founder of a new branch of the House — the Spanish.— See Austria : A. D. 1496-1.526. Also in: W. Robertson, Hist, of the Reign, of Charles V., bk. 1.— J. S. Brewer, The Reign of Henry VIII., ch. 11 {v. 1). — J. Van Praet, Essays on the Pol. Hist, of the ISth-llth Centuries, ch. 3 {!•■ 1). A. D. iS20-:52i.— The Capitulation of Charles V. — His first Diet, at Worms, and its political measures. — The election of Charles V. "was accompanied with a new and essential alteration in the constitution of the empire. Hitherto a general and verbal promise to confirm the Germanic privileges had been deemed a suf- ficient security ; but as the enormous power and vast possessions of the new emperor rendered him the object of greater jealousy and alarm than his predecessors, the electors digested into a formal deed or capitulation all their laws, cus- toms, and privileges, which the ambass;idors of Charles signed before his election, and which he himself ratified before his coronation; and this example has been followed by his successors. It consisted of 36 articles, partly relating to the Germanic body in general, and partly to the elec- tors and states in particular. Of those relating to the Germanic body in general, the most promi- nent were, not to confer the escheated fiefs, but to re-unite and consolidate them, for the benefit of the emperor and empire; not to intrust the charges of the empire to any but Germans ; not to grant dispensations of the common law ; to use the German language in the proceedings of the chancery ; and to put no one arbitrarily to the ban, who had not been previously condemned by the diet or imperial chamber. He was to main- tain the Germanic body In the exercise of its legislative powers, in its right of declaring war and making peace, of passing laws on commerce and coinage, of regulating the contingents, im- posing and directing the perception of ordinary contributions, of establishing and superintending the superior tribunals, and of judging the per- sonal causes of the states. Finally, he promised not to cite the members of the Germanic body before any tribunal except those of the empire, and to maintain them in their legitimate priv- ileges of territorial sovereignty. The articles which regarded the electors were of the utmost importance, because they confirmed the rights which had been long contested with the em- perors. . . . Besides these concessions, he prom- ised not to make any attempt to render the ira- jjerial crown hereditary in his family, and to re-establish the council of regency, in conformity with the advice of the electors and great princes of the empire. On the 6th of January, 1531, Charles assembled his first diet at Worms, where he presided in person. At his proposition the states passed regulations to terminate the troubles which had already arisen during the short in- terval of the interregnum, and to prevent the re- vival of similar disorders. . . . The imperial chamber was re-established in all its authority, aud the public peace again promulgated, and en- forced by new penalties. In order to direct the affairs of the empire during the absence of Charles, a council of regency was established. . . . It was to consist of a lieutenant-general, ap- pointed by the emperor, and 22 assessors, of whom 18 were nominated by the states, and four by Charles, as possessor of the circles of Bur- gundy and Austria. ... At the same time an aid of 30,000 foot and 4,000 horse was granted, to accompany the emperor in his expedition to Rome ; but the diet endeavoured to prevent him from interfering, as Maximilian had done, in the affairs of Italy, by stipulating that these troops were only to be employed as an escort, aud not for the purpose of aggression." — W. Coxe, Hist, of the House of Austria, ch. 36 (». 1). Also in : L. von Ranke, Hist, of the Reforma- tion in Germany, bk. 3, ch. 4 («. 1). ]491 GERMANY. 1522-1535. The Peasants' War, GERMANY, 1534-1525. A. D. 1522-1525. — Systematic organization and adoption in northern Germany of the Lutheran Reformation. — The Diets at Nurem- berg. — The Catholic League of Ratisbon. See Papacy: A. D, 1532-1525. A. D. 1524-1525. — The Peasants' War. — "A political ferment, very different from that pro- duced by the Gospel, had long been troubling the empire. The people, weighed down under civil and ecclesiastical oppression, attached in many places to the lands belonging to the lords, and sold with them, threatened to rise, and furiously burst their chains. In Holland, at the end of the preceding century, the peasants had mustered around standards Inscribed with the words ' bread ' and ' cheese,' to them the two necessaries of life. In 1503 the ' Cobblers' League ' [' Bund- schuh' — see above: A. D. 1492-1514] had burst forth in the neighbourhood of Spires. In 1513 this was renewed in Brisgau, and encouraged by the priests. In 1514 Wurtemburg had witnessed 'the League of poor Conrad,' the object of which was to uphold ' the justice of God ' by re- volt. In 1515 terrible commotions had taken place in Carinthia and Hungary. These insur- rections were stifled by torrents of blood, but no relief had been given to the peoples. A political reform was as much wanted as a religious one. The people had a right to it, but they were not ripe to enjoy it. Since the commencement of the Reformation these popular agitations had been suspended, the minds of men being absorbed with other thoughts. . . . But everything showed that peace would not last long. . . . 'fhe main dykes which had hitherto kept the torrent back were broken, and nothing could restrain its fury. Perhaps it must be admitted that the movement communicated to the people by the Reform gave new force to the discontent which was fermenting in the nation. . . . Erasmus did not liesitate to say to Luther : ' We are now reaping the fruits of the seed you have sown.'. . . The evil was augmented by the pretensions of certain fanati- cal men, who laid claim to celestial inspirations. . . . The most distinguished of these enthusiasts was Thomas Miinzer. . . . His first appearance was at Zwickau. He left Wittenberg after Luther's return [from his concealment at Wart- burg, 1532], dissatisfied with the inferior part he had pla3'ed, and he became pastor of the little town of Alstadt in Thuringia. There he could not long be at rest, and he accused the reformers of founding a new papacy by their attachment to the letter, and of forming churches which were not pure and lioly. He regarded himself as called of God to bear a remedy for so great an evil. . . . He maintained that to obey princes, ' destitute of reason, ' was to serve God and Belial at the same time. Then, marching at the head of his parishioners, to a chapel which was visited by pilgrims from all quarters, he pulled it to the ground. After this e.\ploit he was obliged to quit the country, wandered over Germany, and came to Switzerland, spreading as he went, wherever people would hear him, his plan for a universal revolution. In every place he found elements ready for his purpose. He threw his powder upon the burning coals, and a violent explosion soon followed. . . . The revolt com- menced in those regions of the Black Forest, and tlie sources of the Danube, which were so often the scene of popular disturbances. On the 19th of July, 1534, the Thurgovian peasantry rose against the Abbot of Reichenau, who would not grant them an evangelical preacher. Thousands soon gathered around the little town of Tengen, to liberate an ecclesiastic who was imprisoned there. The revolt spread, with inconceivable rapidity, from Suabia to the Rhine countries, to Franconia, to Thuringia, and to Saxony. In January, 1525, the whole of these countries were in insurrection. Towards the end of that month the peasants published a declaration in twelve articles, asking the liberty to choose their own pastors, the abolition of petty tithes, serfdom, the duties on inheritance, and liberty to hunt, fish, cut wood, &c., and each demand was sup- ported by a passage of Scripture." — J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, The Story of the Reformation, pt. 3, ch. 8 {Hist, of the Refornuition, bk. 10, ch. 10-11). — " Had the feudal lords granted proper and fair reforms long ago, they would never have heard of these twelve articles. But they had refused reform, and they now had to meet revolution. And they knew of but one way of meeting it, namely, by the sword. The lords of the Swabian League sent their army of foot and horsemen, under their captain, George Truchsess. The poor peasants could not hold out against trained soldiers and cavalry. Two battles on the Dan- ube, in which thousands of peasants were slain, or drowned in the river, and a third equally bloody one in Algau, near the Boden See, crushed this rebellion in Swabia, as former rebellions had so often been crushed before. This was early in April 1525. But in the meantime the revolution had spread further north. In the valley of the Neckar a body of 6,000 peasants had come to- gether, enraged by the news of the slaughter of their fellow peasants in the south of Swabia." They stormed the castle of the young Count von Helfenstein, who had recently cut the throats of some peasants who met him on the road, and put the Count to death, with 60 of his companions. "A yell of horror was raised through Germany at the news of the peasants' revenge. No yell had risen when the Count cut peasants' throats, or the Swabian lords slew thousands of peasant rebels. Europe had not yet learned to mete out the same measure of justice to noble and common blood. . . . Tlie revolution spread, and the reign of terror spread with it. North and east of the valley of the Neckar, among the little towns of Franconia, and in the valleys of the Maine, other bands of peasants, mustering by thousands, de- stroyed alike cloisters and castles. Two hundred of these lighted the night with their flames during the few weeks of their temporary triumph. And here another feature of the revolution became prominent. The little towns were already . . . passing through an internal revolution. The artisans were rising against the wealthier burgh- ers, overturning the town councils, and electing committees of artisans in their place, making sudden changes in religion, putting down the JIass, unfrocking priests and monks, and in fact, in the interests of what they thought to be the gospel, turning all things upside down. ... It was during the Franconian rebellion that the peasants chose the robber knight Goetz von Ber- lichingen as their leader. It did them no good. More than a robber chief was needed to cope with soldiers used to war. . . . While all this was going on in the valleys of the Maine, the revolution had crossed the Rhine into Elsass and Lothriugen, and the Palatinate about Spires and 1492 GERMANY, 1524-1525. League of Smalkalde. GERMANY, 1530-1532. "Worms, and in the month of May had been crushed in blood, as in Swabia and Franconia. South and east, in Bavaria, in tlie Tyrol, and in Carinthia also, castles and monasteries went up in flames, and then, when the tide of victory turned, the burning houses and farms of the peasants lit up the night and their blood flowed freely. Meanwhile Sliinzer, who had done so much to stir up the peasantry in the south to rebel, had gone north into Thuringia, and headed a revolution in the town of Miilhausen, and be- came a sort of Savonarola of a madder kind. . . . But the end was coming. The princes, with their disciplined troops, came nearer and nearer. What could Mlinzer do with his 8,000 peasants? He pointed to a rainbow and expected a miracle, but no miracle came. The battle, of course, was lost; 5,000 peasants lay dead upon the field near the little town of Frankeuhausen, where it was fought. Mlinzer fled and concealed himself in a bed, but was found and taken before the princes, thrust into a dungeon, and afterwards beheaded. So ended the wild career of this misguided, fa- natical, self -deceived, but yet, as we must think, earnest and in many ways heroic spirit. . . . The princes and nobles now everywhere pre- vailed over tlie insurgent peasants. Luther, writing on June 21, 1525, says: — ' It is a certain fact, that in Franconia 11,000 peasants have been slain. Markgraf Casimir is cruelly severe upon his peasants, who have twice broken faith with him. In the Duchy of Wurtemberg, 6,000 have been killed; indifferent places in Swabia, 10,000. It is said that in Alsace the Duke of Lorraine has slain 20,000. Thus everywhere the wretched peasants are cut down.' . . . Before the Peasants' War was ended at least 100,000 perished, or twenty times as many as were put to death in Paris during the Reign of Terror in 1793. . . . Luther, throughout the Peasants' AVar, sided with tlie ruling powers. . . . The reform he sought was by means of the civil power; and in order to clear himself and his cause from all par- ticipation in the wild doings of the peasantry, he publicly exhorted the princes to crush their rebellion." — F. Seebohm, The Era of the Protes- tant Remhition, pt. 2, ch. 5. Also ik : L. von Ranke, Hist, of the Mefonna- tion in Oermany, hk. 3, ch. 6 (n. 2). — P. Bayne, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, bk. 11 (e. 2). —J. Kastliu, Life of Luther, pt. 4, ch. 5.— C. W. C. Oman, Tlie Qerman Peasant War of 1525 (Eng. Hist. Rev., v. 5). A. D. 1525-1529. — League of Torgau. — The Diets at Spires. — Legal recognition of the Re- formed Religion, and the withdrawal of it. — The Protest vyhich gave rise to the name "Protestants." See Papacy; A. D. 152.5-1529. A. D. 1529. — Turkish invasion of Austria. — Siege of Vienna. See Hungary: A. D. 1526- 1567. A. D. 1530.— The Diet at Augsburg.— The signing and reading of the Protestant Con- fession of Faith. — The condemnatory decree. — Breach between the Protestants and the em- peror. See Papacy; A. D. 1.530-1.531. A. D. 1530-1532. — The Augsburg Decree. — Alarm of the Protestants. — Their League of Smalkalde and alliance with the king of France. — Pacification of Nuremberg with the emperor. — Expulsion of the Turks from Hun- gary.— The decree issued by the Diet at Augs- burg was condemnatory of most of the tenets peculiar to the protestants, " forbidding any per- son to protect or tolerate such as taught them, enjoining a strict observance of the established rites, and prohibiting any farther innovation, under severe penalties. All orders of men were required to assist with their persons and fortunes in carrying this decree into execution ; and such as refused to obey it were declared incapable of acting as judges, or of appearing as parties in the imperial chamber, the supreme court of judi- cature in the empire. To all which was sub- joined a promise, that an application should be made to the pope, requiring him to call a general council within six months, in order to terminate all controversies by its sovereign decisions. The severity of this decree, which was considered as a prelude to the most violent persecution, alarmed the protestants, and convinced them that the em- peror was resolved on their destruction." Under these circumstances, the protestant princes met at Smalkalde, December 22, 1530, and there "con- cluded a league of mutual defence against all aggressors, by which they formed the protestant states of the empire into one regular body, and, beginning already to consider themselves as such, they resolved to apply to the kings of France and England, and to implore them to patronise and assist their new confederacy. An affair not connected with religion furnished them with a pretence for courting the aid of foreign princes. " This was the election of the emperor's brother, Ferdinand, to be King of the Romans, against which they had protested vigorously. "Whea the protestants, who were assembled a second time at Smalkalde [February, 1531], received an account of this transaction, and heard, at the same time, that prosecutions were commenced in the imperial chamber against some of their num- ber, on account of their religious principles, they thought it necessary, not only to renew their former confederacy, but immediately to despatch their ambassadors into France and England." The king of France "listened with the utmost eagerness to the complaints of the protestant princes; and, without seeming to countenance their religious opinious, determined secretly to cherish those sparks of political discord which might be afterwards kindled into a flame. For this purpose he sent William de Bellay, one of the ablest negotiators in France, into Germany, who, visiting the courts of the malecontent princes, and heightening their ill-humour by various arts, concluded an alliance between them and his master, which, though concealed at that time, and productive of no immediate effects, laid the foundation of a union fatal on many oc- casions to Charles's ambitious projects. . . . The king of England [Henry VIII.], highly incensed against Charles, in complaisance to whom, the pope had long retarded, and now openly opposed, his divorce [from Catharine of Aragon], was no less disposed than Francis to strengthen a league which might be rendered so formidable to the emperor. But his favourite project of the divorce led him into such a labyrinth of schemes and ne- gotiations, and he was, at the same time, so in- tent on abolishing the papal jurisdiction in Eng- land, that he had no leisure for foreign affairs. This obliged him to rest satisfied with giving general promises, together with a small supply in money, to the confederates of Smalkalde. Mean- while, many circumstances convinced Charles that this was not a juncture " in which he could 1493 GERMANY, 1530-1532. Preparations for War, GERMANY, 1533-1546. rafford to let his zeal for the church push liim to extremities with the protestants. ' ' Negotiations were, accordingly, carried on by his direction with the elector of Saxony and his associates; after many delays . . . terms of pacification were agreed upon at Nuremberg [July 23], and ratified solemnly in the diet at Ratisbon [August 3]. In this treaty it was stipulated : that univer- sal peace be established in Germany, until the meeting of a genei'al council, the convocation of which within six months the emperor shall en- ■deavour to procure ; that no person shall be mo- lested on account of religion ; that a stop shall be put to all processes begun by the imperial cham- ber against protestants, and the sentences already passed to their detriment shall be declared void. On their part, the protestants engaged to assist the emperor with all their forces in resisting the invasion of the Turks. . . . The protestants of •Germany, who had hitherto been viewed only as a religious sect, came henceforth to be considered as a political body of no small consequence. The intelligence which Charles received of Solyraan's having entered Hungary, at the head of 300,000 men, brought the deliberations of the diet at Ratisbon to a period. . . . The protestants, as a testimony of their gratitude to the emperor, ex- •erted themselves with extraordinary zeal, and brought into the field forces which exceeded in number the quota imposed on them; and the ■catholics imitating their example, one of the greatest and best-appointed armies that had ever been levied in Germany, assembled near Vienna. . . . It amounted in all to 90,000 disciplined foot, ;and 30,000 horse, besides a prodigious swarm of irregulars. Of this vast army . . . the emperor took the command in person ; and mankind waited in suspense the issue of a decisive battle between the two greatest monarchs in the world. But each of them dreading the other's power and good fortune, they both conducted their oper- :ations with such excessive caution, that a cam- paign for which such immense preparations had been made ended without any memorable event. :8olyman, finding it impossible to gain ground \ipon an enemy always attentive and on his guard, marched back to Constantinople towards the end of autumn. . . . About the beginning of this campaign, the elector of Saxony died, and was succeeded by his son John Frederick. . . . Immediately after the retreat of the Turks, ■Charles, impatient to revisit Spain, set out, on his way thither, for Italy." — W. Robertson, Hist. ,of tlie Reign of Charles V., bk. 5. Also in : L. von Ranke, Hist, of ths lieforma- ■Uon in Oermany, bk. 6, ch. 1-8 (». 3). — H. Steb- bing. Hist, of the Reformation, ch. 12-13 (». 3). A. D. 1532-1536.— Fanaticism of the Ana- baptists of Miinster. — Siege and capture of the city. See An.vbaptists of Mijnster. A. D. 1533-1546.— Mercenary aspects of the Reformation.— Protestant intolerance. — Union with the Swiss Reformers. — The Catholic Holy League. — Preparations for war. — " Dur- ing the next few years [after the peace concluded at Nuremberg] there was no open hostility be- tween the two religious parties. . . . But there was dissension enough. In the first place there was much disputation as to the meaning of the articles concluded at Nuremberg. The catholic princes, under the pretext that, if no man was to be disturbed for his faith, or for things depend- ing on faith, he was still amenable for certain offences against the church, which were purely of a civil nature, were eager that the imperial chamber should take cognisance of future cases, at least, where protestants should seek to invade the temporalities of the church. . . . But noth- ing was effected ; the tribunal was too powerless to enforce its decrees. In 153-1, the protestants, in a public assembl}', renounced all obedience to the chamber; yet they did not cease to appropri- ate to themselves the property of such monas- teries and churches as, by the conversion of catholics to their faith — and that faith was con- tinually progressive — lay within their jurisdic- tion. We need scarcely observe, that the pros- pect of spoliation was often the most powerful inducement with the princes and nobles to change their religion. When they, or the magistracy of any particular city, renounced the faitli hitherto established, the people were expected to follow the example: the moment Lutheranism was es- tablished in its place, the ancient faith was abol- ished; nobody was allowed to profess it; and, with one common accord, all who had any pros- pect of benefiting by the change threw themselves on the domains of the expelled clergy. That the latter should complain before the only tribunal where justice could be expected, was natural; nor can we be surprised that the plunderers should soon deny, in religious affairs, the juris- diction of that tribunal. From the departure of the emperor to the year 1538, some hundreds of domains were thus seized, and some hundreds of complaints addressed to him by parties who re- solved to interpret the articles of Nuremberg in their own way. The protestants declared, in a letter to him, that their consciences would not allow them to tolerate any papist in their states. . . . By espousing the cause of the exiled duke of Wittemberg, they procured a powerful ally. . . . But a greater advantage was the union of the sacramentarians [the Swiss reformers, who accepted the doctrine of Zwingli respecting the purely symbolical significance of the commemo- ration of the Lord's Supper — see Switzerl.vnd : A. D. 1538-1531] with the Lutherans. Of such a result, at the diet of Augsburg, there was not the least hope ; but Bucer, being deputed by the im- perial cities to ascertain whether a union might not be effected, laboured so zealously at the task that it was effected. He consented to modify some of his former opinions ; or at least to wrap them in language so equivocal that they might mean anything or nothing at the pleasure of the holder. The Swiss, indeed, especially those of Zurich, refused to sanction the articles on which Luther and Bucer had agreed. Still, by the union of all protestant Germany under the same lianners, much was gained. ... In the mean- time, the dissensions between the two great par- ties augmented from day to day. To pacify them, Charles sent fruitless embassies. Roused by the apparent danger, in 1538, the catholic princes formed, at Nuremberg, a counter league to that of Smalcald [calling it the Holy League]. . . . The death of Luther's old enemy, George, duke of Saxony [1539], transferred the dominion of that prince's states into the hands of [his brother Henry] a Lutheran. Henry, duke of Brunswick, was now the only great secular prince in the north of Germany who adhered to the Roman catholic faith. ... A truce was con- cluded at Frankfort, in 1539; but it could not remove the existing animosity, which was daily 1494 GERMANY, 1533-1546. Beginning of War. GERMANY, 1546-1553. augmented. Both parties were in tlie wrong. ... At the close of 1540, Woi-ms was the scene of a conference very different from that where, 20 years before, Luther had been proscribed. There was an interminable theological disputation. . . . As little good resulted, Charles, who was hasten- ing from the Low Countries to his German do- minions, evoked the affair before a diet at Ratis- bon, in April, 1541. . . . The diet of Ratisbon was well attended ; and never did prince exert himself more zealously than Charles to make peace between his angry subjects. But ... all that could be obtained was, that things should be suffered to remain in their present state until a future diet or a general council. The reduc- tion of Buda, however, by the Turks, rendered king Ferdinand, his brother, and the whole of Germany, eager for an immediate settlement of the dispute. . . . Hence the diet of Spires in 1542. If, in regard to religion, nothing definitive was arranged, except the selection of Trent as the place most suitable for a general council, one good end was secured — supplies for the war with the Turks. The campaign, however, which passed without an action, was inglorious to the Germans, who appear to have been in a lamen- table state of discipline. Nor was the public satisfaction much increased by the disputes of the Smalcald league with Henry of Brunswick. The duke was angry with his subjects of Bruns- wick and Breslau, who adhered to the protestant league; and though he had reason enough to be dissatisfied with both, nothing could be more vexatious than his conduct towards them. In revenge, the league of Smalcald sent 19,000 men into the field, — a formidable display of protes- tant power ! — and Henry was expelled from his hereditary states, which were seized by the vic- tors. He invoked the aid of the imperial cham- ber, which cited the chiefs of the league ; but as, in 1538, the competency of that tribunal had been denied in religious, so now it was denied in civil matters. . . . The following years exhibit on both sides the same jealousy, the same du- plicity, often the same violence where the mask was no longer required, with as many ineffectual attempts to procure a union between them. . . . The progress of events continued to favour the reformers. They had already two votes in the electoral college, — those of Saxony and Branden- burg ; they were now to have the preponderance ; for the elector palatine and Herman archbishop of Cologne abjured their religion, thus placing at the command of the reformed party four votes against three. But this numerical superiority did not long remain. . . . The pope excommuni- cated the archbishop, deposed him from his dig- nity, and ordered the chapter to proceed to a new election ; and when Herman refused to obey, Charles sent troops to expel him, and to instal the archbishop elect, Count Adolf of Nassau. Herman retired to his patrimonial estates, where he died in the profession of the reformed religion. These events mortified the members of the Smal- cald league ; but they were soon partially con- soled by the capture of Henry duke of Bruns- wick [i546], who had the temerity to collect troops and invade his patrimonial dominions. Their success gave umbrage to the emperor. . . . He knew that the confederates had already 30,000 men under arms, and that they were actively, however secretly, augmenting their forces. His first care was to cause troops to be as secretly collected in his hereditary states ; his second, to seduce, if possible, some leaders of the protes- tants. With Maurice duke of Saxony he was soon successful ; and eventually with the two margraves of Brandenburg, who agreed to make preparations for a campaign and join him at the proper moment. . . . His convocation of the diet at Katisbon [1546], which after a vain parade ended in nothing, was only to hide his real de- signs. As he began to throw off the mask, the reformed theologians precipitately withdrew; and both parties took the field, but not until they had each published a manifesto to justify this extreme proceeding. In each there was much truth, and more falsehood." — S. A. Dunham, Hist, of the Germanic Empire, bk. 3, ch. 3 (?'. 3). A. D. 1542-1544. — War with Francis I. of France. — Battle of Cerisoles. — Treaty of Crespy. See France: A. D. 1532-1547. A. D. 1542-1563. — The beginning of the Ro- man Catholic reaction. — The Council of Trent. See Papacy: A. D. 1537-1563. A. D. 1546-1552. — War of Charles against the Protestants. — The treachery of Maurice of Saxony. — The battle of Muhlberg. — The em- peror's proposed "Interim" and its failure. — His reverse of fortune. — Protestantism trium- phant. — The Treaty of Passau. — "Luther's death [which occurred in 1546] made no change in the resolution which Charles had at last taken to crush the Reformation in his German dominions by force of arms ; on the contrary, he was more than ever stimulated to carry out his purpose by two occurrences: the adoption of the new re- ligion by one who was not only an Elector of the Empire, but one of the chief prelates of the^ Church, the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne. . . . The other event that influenced him was the re- fusal of the Protestants to accept as binding the decrees of the Council of Trent, which was com- posed of scarcely any members but a few Italian and Spanish prelates, and from which they ap- pealed to either a free general Council or a na- tional Council of the Empire; offering, at the same time, if Charles should prefer it, to submit the whole question of religion to a joint Commis- sion, composed of divines of each party. These remonstrances, however, the Emperor treated with contempt. He had been for some time se- cretly raising troops in different quarters ; and, early in 1546, he made a fresh treaty with the Pope, by which he bound himself instantly to commence warlike operations, and which, though it had been negotiated as a secret treaty, Paul instantly published, to prevent any retraction or delay on his part. War therefore now began, though Charles professed to enter upon it, not for the purpose of enforcinga particular religious belief on the recusants, but for that of re-estab- lishing the Imijerial authority, which, as he af- firmed, many of the confederate princes had disowned. Such a pretext he expected to sow disunion in the body, some members of which were far from desirous to weaken the great con- federacy of the Empire : and, in effect, it did pro- duce a hesitation in their early steps that had the most important consequences on the first cam- paign; for, in spite of the length of time during which he had secretly been preparing for war, when it came they were more ready than he. They at once took the field with an army of 90,000 men and 130 guns, while he, for the first few weeks after the declaration of war, had hardly 1495 GERMANY, 1546-1553. Protestantism do wnf alien. GERMANY, 1546-1552. 10,000 men with him in Ratisbon. . . . But the advantage of a single over a divided command was perhaps never more clearly e.xeraplified than in the first operations of the two armies. He, as the weaker party, took up a defensive posi- tion near Ingolstadt ; but, though they advanced within sight of bis lines, they could not agree on the mode of attack, or even on the prudence of attacking him at all. ... At last, the confeder- ates actually drew off, and Charles, advancing, made himself master of many important towns, which their irresolution alone had enabled him to approach. " Meanwhile the Emperor had won an important ally. This was Duke Maurice, of the Albertine line of the House of Saxony (see Sax- ony: A. D. 1180-1553), to whom several oppor- tune deaths had given the ducal seat unexpect- edly, in 1541, and whose ambition now hungered for the Electorate, which was held by the other (the Ernestine) branch of the family. He con- ceived the idea of profiting by the troubles of the time to win possession of it. "With this view, though he also was a Protestant, he tendered his services to the Emperor, who, in spite of his youth, discerned in him a promise of very su- perior capacity, gladly accepted his aid, and promised to reward him with the territories which he coveted. The advantages which Protestant- ism eventually derived from Maurice's success has blinded some historians to the infamy of the conduct by which he achieved it. . . . The Elec- tor [John Frederick] was his [second] cousin ; the Landgrave of Hesse was his father-in-law. Pleading an unwillingness while so young (he was barely 21) to engage in the war, he volun- teered to undertake the protection of his cousin's dominions during his absence in the field. His offer was thankfully accepted; but he was no sooner installed in his charge than he began to negotiate with the enemy to invade the territories which he had bound himself to protect. And on receiving from Charles a copy of a decree, called the Ban of the Empire, which had just been issued against both the Elector and the Landgrave, he at once raised a force of his own, with which he overran one portion of [the Elector's] dominions, while a division of the Imperial army attacked the rest ; and he would probably have succeeded at once in subduing the whole Electorate, had the main body of the Protestants been able to maintain the war on the Danube. " But Charles's successes there brought about a suspension of hostilities which enabled the Elector to return and "chastise Maurice for his treachery ; to drive him not only from the towns and districts which he had seized, but to strip him also of the greater part of the territory which belonged to him by inheritance. " Charles was unable, at first, to give any assis- tance to his ally. The Elector, however, who was the worst of generals, so scattered his forces that when, "on the 23d of April [1547], Charles reached the Elbe and prepared to attack him, he had no advantage over his assailant but that of position. That indeed was very strong. He lay at Muhlberg, on the right bank of the river, which at that point is 300 yards wide and more than four feet deep, with a stream so rapid as to render the passage, even for horsemen, a task of great difficulty and danger." Against the re- monstrances of his ablest general, the Duke of Alva, Cliarles, favored by a heavy fog, led his army across the river and boldly attacked. The Elector attempted to retreat, but his retreat be- came a rout. Many fell, but many more were taken prisoners, including the Elector and the Landgrave of Hesse. The victory was decisive for the time, and Charles used it without modera- tion or generosity. He declared a forfeiture of the whole Electorate of Saxony by John Frederick, and conferred it upon the treacherous Maurice ; and, ' ' though Maurice was son-in-law of the Land- grave of Hesse, he stripped that prince of his terri- tories, and, by a device scarcely removed from the tricks of a kidnapper, threw him also into prison." Charles seemed now to be completely master of the situation in Germany, and there was little op- position to his will in a diet which he convened at Augsburg. — C. D. Yonge, Three Centuries of Modern History, ch. 4. — "He opened the Diet of Augsburg (September 1, 1547), in the hope of finally bringing about the union so long desired and so frequently attempted, but which he de- spaired of effecting through a council which the Protestants had rejected in advance. ... By the famous 'Interim' of Augsburg — the joint production of Julius von Pflug, Bishop of Naum- berg; Michael Helding, coadjutor of Mentz; and the wily and subtle John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg — Protestants were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds ; the Protestant clergy already married to retain their wives ; and a tacit approval given to the retention of property already taken from the Church. This instrument was, from begin- ning to end, a masterpiece of duplicity, and as such satisfied no party. The Catholics of Ger- many, the Protestants, and the Court of Rome, each took exception to it. . . . Maurice, the new Elector of Saxony, unwilling to give the Interim an unconditional approval, consulted with a num- ber of Protestant theologians, headed by Mclanc- thon, as to how far he might accept its provisions with a safe conscience. In reply they drew up what is known as tlie Leipsig Interim (1548), in which they stated that questions of ritual and ceremony, and others of minor importance, which they designated by the generic word adiaphora, might be wholly overlooked ; and even in points of a strictly doctrinal character, they expressed themselves favourable to concession and compro- mise. . . . Such Lutheran preachers as professed to be faithful followers of their master, made a determined opposition to the ' Interim, 'and began a vigorous assault upon its adiaphoristic clauses. The Anti-adiaphorists, as they were called, were headed by Flacius Illyricus, who being an ardent disciple of Luther's, and possessing somewhat of his courage and energy, repaired to Magdeburg, whose bold citizens were as defiant of imperial power as they were contemptuous of papal au- thority. But in spite of this spirited opposition, the Interim was gradually accepted by several Protestant countries and cities — a fact which en- couraged the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1550, to make a final effort to have the Protestants attend the sessions of the Council of Trent, again openedby Pope Julius III. . . . After a short de- lay, deputies from Brandenburg, Wilrtemberg, and Saxony began to appear at Trent; and even the Wittenberg theologians, headed by Melanc- thon, were already on their way to the Council, when Maurice of Saxony, having secured all the advantages he hoped to obtain by an alliance with the Catholic party, and regardless of the obliga- tions by which he was bound, proceeded to betray both the emperor and his country. Having 1496 GERMANY. 1546-1552. Protestantism recovered. GERMANY, 1553-1561. received a coramissioii to carry into effect the ban of the empire passed upon Magdeburg, he was in a position to assemble a large body of troops in Germany without exciting suspicion, or revealing his ulterior purposes. Besides unit- ing to himself, as confederates in his plot, John Albert, Duke of Mecklenburg; Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg; and William, Landgrave of Hesse, eldest son of Philip of Hesse, he entered into a secret treaty (Oct. 5, 1551) with Henry 11., King of France, who, as was pretended, coming into Germany as the saviour of the country, seized the cities of Metz, Toul, and Verdun. Maurice also held out to Henry the prospect of securing the imperial crown. Everything be- ing iu readiness for action, Maurice advancing through Thuriugia, seized the city of Augsburg, and suddenly made bis appearance before Inns- pruck, whence the emperor, who lay sick of a severe attack of the gout, was hastily conveyed on a litter, through the passes of the mountains, to Villach, in Carinthia. "While Maurice was thus making himself master of Inuspruck, the King of the French was carrying out his part of the programme by actively prosecuting the war in Lorraine. Charles V. , now destitute of the ma- terial resources necessary to carry on a success- ful campaign against the combined armies of the French king and the German princes, and de- spairing of putting an end to the obstinate con- flict by his personal endeavours, resolved to re-establish, if possible, his waning power by peaceful negotiations. To this end, he commis- sioned his brother Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau (Julj' 30, 1553), which provided that Philip of Hesse should be set at liberty, and gave pledges for the speedy settlement of all re- ligious and political differences by a Diet, to be summoned at an early day. It further provided that neither the emperor nor the Protestant princes should put any restraint upon freedom of conscience, and that all questions arising in the interval between the two parties should be re- ferred for settlement to an Imperial Commis- sion, composed of an equal number of Catholics and Protestants. In consequence of the war then being carried on by the empire against France for the recovery of the three bishoprics of Lor- raine of which the French had taken possession, the Diet did not convene until February 5, 1555." — J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, «. 3, pp. 376-379. Also in: W. Robertson, Hist, of the Beign of Cliarles V., hk. 8-10 (u. 3-3).— L. von Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, ch. 6. — E. E. Crowe, Cardinal Grranvelle and Maurice of Saxony (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, v. 1). — L. Hausser, T7te Period of tJie Reformation, ch. 15-17. — G. P. Fisher, Hist, of the Reformation, eh. 5. — F. Kohlrausch, Hist, of Germany, ch. 20. A. D. 1547. — Pragmatic Sanction of Charles v., changing the relations of the Netherland provinces to the Empire. See Netherlands: A. D. 15i7. A. D. 1552-1561. — Battle of Sievershausen and death of Maurice. — The Religious Peace of Augsburg. — Abdication of Charles V. — Suc- cession of Ferdinand I. — The halting of the Reformation and the rally of Catholic resis- tance. — By the treaty of Passau, Maurice of Saxony bound himself to defend the empire against the French and the Turks. " He accord- ingly took the field against the latter, but with little success, the imperial commander, Castaldo, contravening all his efforts by plundering Hun- gary and drawing upon himself the hatred of the people. Charles, meanwhile, marched against the French, and, without hesitation, again de- posed the corporative governments reinstated by Maurice, on his way through Augsburg, Ulni, Esslingen, etc. Metz, valiantly defended by the Duke de Guise, was vainly besieged for some months, and the Emperor was at length forced to retreat. The French were, nevertheless, driven out of Italy. The aged emperor now sighed for peace. Ferdinand, averse to open warfare, placed his hopes on the imperceptible effect of a con- sistently pursued system of suppression and Jesuitical obscurantism. Maurice was answer- able for the continuance of the peace, the terms of which he had prescribed. . . . Albert the "Wild [of Brandenburg] was the only one among the princes who was still desirous of war. In- different to aught else, he marched at the head of some thousand followers through central Ger- many, murdering and plundering as he passed along, with tJie intent of once more laying the Franconian and Saxon bishoprics waste in the name of the gospel. The princes at length formed the Heidelberg confederacy against this monster and the emperor put him under the bann of the empire, which Maurice undertook to exe- cute, although he had been his old friend and companion in arms. Albert was engaged in plundering the archbishopric of Magdeburg, when Maurice came up with him at Sievershaus- en. A murderous engagement took place (A. D. 1553). Three of the princes of Brunswick were slain. Albert was severely wounded, and Mau- rice fell at the moment when victory declared in his favour, in the 33d year of his age, in the midst of his promising career. . . . Every ob- stacle was now removed, and a peace, known as the religious peace of Augsburg, was concluded by the diet held in that city, A. D. 1555. This peace was naturally a mere political agreement provisionally entered into by the princes for the benefit, not of religion, but of themselves. Popular opinion was dumb, knights, burgesses, and peasants bending in lowly submission to the mandate of their sovereigns. By this treaty, branded in history as the most lawless ever con- certed in Germany, the principle 'cujus regio, ejus religio,' the faith of the prince must be that of the people, was laid down. By it not only all the Reformed subjects of a Catholic prince were exposed to the utmost cruelty and tyrannj% but the religion of each separate country was rendered dependent on the cajjrice of the reigning prince; of this the Pfalz offered a sad example, the re- ligion of the people being thus four times arbi- trarily changed. . . . Freedom of belief, con- fined to the immediate subjects of the empire, for instance, to the reigning princes, the free nobility, and the city councillors, was monopo- lized by at most 30,000 privileged persons. . . . The false peace concluded at Augsburg was im- mediately followed by Charles V. 's abdication of his numerous cro%vns [see Netherlands: A. D. 1555]. He would willingly have resigned that of the empire to his son Philip, had not the Spanish education of that prince, his gloomy and bigoted character, inspired the Germans with an aversion as unconquerable as that with which he beheld them. Ferdinand had, moreover, gained 1497 GERMANY, 1552-1561. Degeneracy of the Reformation. GERMANY, 1556-1609. the favour of the German princes. Charles, nevertheless, influenced by affection towards his son, bestowed upon him one of the finest of the German provinces, the Netherlands, besides Spain, Milan, Naples, and the West Indies (America). Ferdinand received the rest of the German hereditary possessions of his house, besides Bo- hemia and Hungary. . . . Ferdinand I., opposed in his hereditary provinces by a predominating Protestant party, which he was compelled to tol- erate, was politically overbalanced by his nephew, Philip II., in Spain and Italy, where Catholicism flourished. The preponderance of the Spanish over the Austrian branch of the house of Habs- burg exercised the most pernicious influence on the whole of Germany, by securing to the Catho- lics a support which rendered reconciliation im- possible. . . . The religious disputes and petty egotism of the several estates of the empire had utterly stifled every sentiment of patriotism, and not a dissentient voice was raised against the will of Charles V., which bestowed the whole of the Netherlands, one of the finest of the prov- inces of Germany, upon Spain, the division and consequent weakening of the powerful house of Habsburg being regarded by the princes with delight. At the same time that the power of the Protestant party was shaken by the peace of Augsburg, Cardinal Carafifa mounted the pontif- ical throne as Paul IV., the first pope who, fol- lowing the plan of the Jesuits, abandoned the system of defence for that of attack. The Ref- ormation no sooner ceased to progress, than a preventive movement began [see Papacy: A. D. 1537-1563]. . . . Ferdinand I. was in a difficult position. Paul IV. refused to acknowledge him on accoimt of the peace concluded between him and the Protestants, whom he was unable to op- pose, and whose tenets he refused to embrace, not- withstanding the expressed wish of the majority of his subjects. Like his brother, he intrigued and diplomatized until his Jesuitical confessor, Bobadilla, and the new pope, Pius IV., again placed him on good terms with Rome, A. D. 1559. . . . Augustus, elector of Saxony, the brother of Maurice, alarmed at the fresh alliance between the emperor and pope, convoked a meeting of the Protestant leaders at Naumberg. His fears were, however, allayed by the peaceful proposals of the emperor (A. D. 1561). ... A last attempt to save the unity of the German church, in the event of its separation from that of Rome, was made by Ferdinand, who convoked the spiritual electoral princes, the archbishops and bishops, for that purpose to Vienna, but the consideration with which he was compelled to treat the pope rendered his efforts weak and in- effectual. . . . The Protestants, blind to the unity and strength resulting from the policy of the Catholics, weakened themselves more and more by division." — W. Menzel, Hist, of Germany sect. 197-198 (e. 2). A. D. 1556-1558. — Abdication of the em- peror, Charles V., and election of his brother, Ferdinand. See Netherlands: A. D. 15.55. A. D. 1556-1609.— The degeneracy of the Reformation. — Internal hostilities of Protes- tantism. — Tolerant reigns of Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. — Renewed persecution under Rudolf II. — The risings against hira. — His cessions and abdications. — " Germany was ex- ternally at peace. When the peace was broken in Protestant states, the Protestants themselves. that is, a part of their divines, were the cause of the disturbance. These were ' frantic ' Luther- ans. The theologian Flacius, at Jena, openly attacked Melancthon as a ' traitor to the church,' on account of his strivings for peace. The re- ligious controversies in the bosom of the adher- ents of the Augsburg Confession had been since Luther's death inflamed to madness by a strict Lutheran party, by slaves of the letter, who raged not only against the Zwinglian and Cal- vinistic reformations, but against Melancthon and those who sympathized with him. The theological pugilists disgraced Protestantism, and aroused such a spirit of persecution that Melancthon died on the 19th of April, 1560, ' weary and full of anxiety of soul about the future of the Reformation and the German na- tion. ' His followers, ' Lutheran ' preachers and professors, were persecuted, banished, impris- oned, on account of suspicion of being inclined to the ' Reformed ' [Calvinistic] as distinguished from ' Evangelical ' views ; prayers for the ' ex- tirpation of heresy ' were offered in the churches of Saxony, and a medal struck ' to commemorate the victory of Christ over the Devil and Reason,' that is, over Melancthon and his moderate party. . . . Each parson and professor held himself to be a divinely inspired watchman of Zion, who had to watch over purity of doctrine. . . . The universal prevalence of ' trials for witchcraft ' in Protestant districts, with their chambers of tor- ture and burnings at the stake, marked the new priestcraft of Lutheran Protestantism in its de- Ijasement into a dogmatizing church. This quickly degenerating Protestant Church com- prised a mass of separate churches, because the vanity and selfishness of the court clergy at every court, and the professors of every university, would have a church of their own. . . . Every misfortune to the ' Reformed ' churches caused a malevolent joy in the Lutheran camp, and every common measure against the common enemy was rejected by the Lutheran clergy from hatred to the ' Reformed. ' . . . The emperor Ferdinand I. had long been convinced that some change was required in the Church of Rome. As he wrote to his ambassador in Trent, ' If a reform of the Church did not proceed from the Church herself, he would undertake the charge of it in Germany.' He never ceased to ofi'er his mediation between the two religious parties. He thought, and thought justly, that a compromise was possible in Germany. . . . The change which gradually took place in the head and heart of Ferdinand had not extended to those who sat in St. Peter's chair. Ferdinand I., to improve the moral state of the old Church, insisted most strongly on the abolition of the celibacy of the clergy ; this the Pope declared the most indispensable prop of the Papacy. As thus his proposals came to naught, he attempted to introduce the proposed reformation into his hereditary domains; but just as he was beginning to be the Reformer of these provinces, death removed him from the world, on the 35th of July, 1564. . . . His oldest son and successor, JIaximilian II. , . . . was out and out German. Growing up in the great movement of the time, the Emperor Maximilian II. was warmly devoted to the new ideas. He hated the Jesuits and the Papacy. ... He re- mained in the middle between Protestants and Catholics, but really above both. ... He fa- vored the Reformation in his Austrian dominions; 1498 GERMANY, 1536-1609. The Union and the League, GERMANY, 1608-1618. at the very time when Philip II. of Spain, the son of Charles V., had commenced the bloodiest persecution against the Reformed Church in the Netherlands ... ; at the very time when the French court, ruled and led by Jesuits, put into execution the long-prepared conspiracy of St. Bartholomew. . . . He never ceased to call the kings of France and Spain to gentleness and toleration. . . . ' I have no power, ' said the em- peror, 'over consciences, and may constrain no nian's faith.' The princes unanimously elected the son of Maximilian as King of the Romans, and Max received another gratification: he was elected king by the gallant nation of the Poles. Thus the house of Austria was again powerfully strengthened. Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and Germany, united under one ruler, formed a power which could meet Turkey and Russia. The Turks and the Russians were pressing forward. The Turkish wars, more than anything else, prevented Max from carrying out his long-cher- ished plan and giving a constitution to the em- pire and church of the Germans. He who tow- ered high above the Papal party and the miserable controversies of Protestant divines, and whose clear mind saw what the times required, would have had every qualification for such a task. But in the midst of his great projects, Maximilian 11. died, in his 49th year, on the 13th of October, 1576; as emperor, honest, mild and wise, and elevated above all religious controversies to a degree that no prince has ever reached. He had always been a rock of offence to the Catholic party. . . . But Rudolf [son of Maximilian II.], when he became emperor [1576], surrounded by secret Jesuits who had been his teachers and ad- visers, became the humblest slave of the order and let it do what it would. Rudolf had been sent by his father for the interests of his own house to the Spanish court; a terrible punish- ment now followed this self-seeking. Rudolf confirmed liberty of conscience only to the nobles, not to the citizens or peasants. He forbade the two latter classes to visit the Evangelical churches, he closed their schools, ordered them to frequent Catholic churches, threatened disobedience with banishment, and even in the case of nobles he dismissed from his court charges all who were not strict papists. The people of Vienna and Austria liated him for these orders. . . . With- out any judicial investigation he threatened free cities with ' execution.' Aix la Chapelle expelled his troops. Gebhard, the elector of Cologne, married a Countess von Mansfeld and went over to Protestantism. . . . The Protestants supported him badly ; Lutherans and Calvinists were at bitter feud with each other [see Papacy : A. D. 1570-1.597]. ... It was a croaking of ravens, and a great field of the dead was not far off. . . . The Emperor Rudolf, ... on a return journey from Rome, vowed to Our Lady of Loretto, 'his Generalissima,' to extirpate heretics at the risk of his life. In his hereditary estates he ordered all who were not papists to leave the territory. Soon afterwards lie pulled down the Evangelical churches, and dispersed the citizens by arms. He intended soon to begin the same proceedings in Hungary and Bohemia; but in Hungary the nation rose in defence of its liberty and faith. The receipt of the intelligence that the Hungarian malcontents were progressing victoriously produced — what there had been symptoms of before — insanity. Tlie members of the house of Austria assembled, and declared ' The Emperor Rudolf can be no longer head of the house, because unfortunately it is too plain that his Roman Imperial Majesty . . . was not competent or fit to govern the kingdoms.' The Archduke Matthias [eldest brother of Rudolf] was elected head of the Austrian house [1606]. He collected an army of 20,000 men, and made known that he would depose the emperor from the government of his hereditary domains. Ru- dolf's Jesuitical flatterers had named him the ' Bo- hemian Solomon.' He now, in terror, without drawing sword, ceded Hungary and Austria to Matthias, and gave him also the government of Moravia. Matthias guaranteed religious liberty to the Austrians. Rudolf did the same to the Bohemians and Silesians by the ' Letters of Ma- jesty.' Rudolf, to escape deposition by Mat- thias, abdicated the throne of Bohemia." — W. Zimmerman, Popular Hist, of Oermany, bk. 5, ch. 2 (i\ 4). Also in: F. Kohlrausch, Hist, of Oermany, eh. 21. A. D. 1608-1618. — The Evangelical Union and the Catholic League. — The Jiilich-Cleve contest. — Troubles in Bohemia. — The begin- ning of the Thirty Years War. — "Many Prot- estants were alarmed by the attempts Rudolf had made to put them down, and especially by his allowing the Duke of Bavaria to seize the- free city of DonauwOrth, formerly a Bavarian town, and make it Catholic. In 1608 a number of Protestants joined together and formed, for ten years, a league called The Union. Its forma- tion was due chiefly to the exertions of Prince Christian of Anhalt, who had busily intrigued with Henry IV. of France ; but its head was the Elector Palatine. As the latter belonged to the Reformed Church, the Lutherans for the most part treated the Union coldly ; and the Elector of Saxony would have nothing to do with it. It soon had an opportunity of acting. Duke Wil- liam of Julich, who held Jillich, Cleve, and other lands, died in 1609. John Sigmund, Elector of Brandenburg, and the Palsgrave of Neuberg, both members of the Union, claimed to be his heirs, and took possession of his lands. The Emperor Rudolf sent his brother, the Archduke Leopold, Bishop of Passau, to drive out these princes. The LTnion thereupon formed an alli- ance with Henry IV. of France [see France: A. D. 1599-1610], and, coming to the aid of its members, scattered the forces of the Archduke in 1610. The Catholics now took fright, and hastened to form a League which should hold the Union in check. It was formed for nine years, and the supreme command was given to- Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. The death of Henry IV. took away from the Union its chief source of strength, so that it shrank from a gen- eral war. The two princes, however, who had given rise to the quarrel, kept for a time the Jiilich-Cleve territory. In 1611 [1618] the power of the Elector of Brandenburg was further in- creased by his succeeding to the Duchy of Prus- sia. From this time East Prussia was always joined to Brandenburg. It was now, therefore, that the house of Brandenburg laid the founda- tions of its future greatness [see Prussia]. Matthias, in order to pacify the Austrian States, granted them full religious liberty. In 1609 the Bohemian States also obtained from Rudolf a Royal Charter, called ' The Letter of 1499 GERMANY, 1608-1618. Beginning of the Thirty Years War. GERMANY, 1618-1620. Majesty,' conceding to nobility, knights and towns perfect freedom in religious matters, and the right to build Protestant churches and schools on their own and on the royal lauds. Bohemia showed no gratitude for this favour. Suspecting his designs, the Bohemians even shut Rudolf up in his castle at Prague in 1611, and asked Mat- thias to come to their aid. He did so, and seized the supreme power. Next j'ear Rudolf died. Matthias was crowned at Frankfurt with great pomp, but he was no better fitted for the throne than his brother. He was compelled to yield much to the Protestants, yet favoured tlie Jesuits in their continued efforts to convert Germany. His government was so feeble that his brothers at length made him accept Ferdinand, Duke of Styria, as his coadjutor. In 1617 Ferdinand was elected as Rudolf 's successor to the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary, and from this time all real power in the Habsburg possessions was wielded by him. Ferdinand was a young man. but had already given proof of great energy of character. . . . The Protestants looked forward with dread to his reign if he should receive the Imperial crown. Styria had become almost wholl}' Lutheran. When Ferdinand succeeded his father, he had driven out the Protestant families, and made the land altogether Catholic. No Catholic i^riuce had ever shown himself more reckless as to the means by which he served his church. The Protestants, therefore, had good reason to fear that if he became Emperor he would renew the policy of Charles V., and try to bring back the old state of things, in which there was but one Church as there was but one Empire. Events proved that these fears were well founded. The last da3's of Matthias were verj' troubled. Two Protestant churches were built in Bohemia, one in the territory of the Archbishop of Prague, the other in that of the Abbot of Braunau. These princes, with per- mission of the Emperor, pulled down one of the churches and shut up the other. The Protestants complained ; but their appeal was met by the re- ply that the Letter of Majesty did not permit them to build churches on the lands of ecclesias- tics. This answer excited great indignation in Bohemia ; and a rumour was got up that it had not come from the Emperor, but had been written in Prague. On May 23, 1618, a number of Protes- tants, headed by Count Thurn, marched to the Council Hall of the Royal Castle, and demanded to be told the real facts. When the councillors hesitated, two of them, with the private secre- tary, were seized and thrown out of the window [see Bohemia: A. D. 1611-1618]. The Protes- tants then took possession of the Royal Castle, drove the Jesuits out of Bohemia, and appointed a council of thirty nobles to carry on the govern- ment. " These events formed the beginning of the "Thirty Years War."— J. Sime, Hist, of Oermany. ch. 14.— "The Thirty Years' War was the last struggle which marked the progress of the Reformation. This war, whose direction and object were equally undetermined, may be divi- ded into four distinct portions, in which the Elector Palatine, Denmark, Sweden, and France played in succession the principal part. It be- came more and more complicated, until it spread over the whole of Europe. It was prolonged in- definitely by various causes. I. The intimate union between the two branches of the house of Austria and of the Catholic party — their oppo- nents, on the other hand, were not homogeneous. II. The inaction of England, the tardy interven- tion of France, the poverty of Denmark and Sweden, &c. The armies which took part in the Thirty Years' War were no longer feudal militias, they were permanent armies. . . . They lived at the expense of the countries which they laid waste." — J. Michelet, Summary of Modern Hint., ch. 12. Also in : A. Gindely, Hist, of the Thirty Years' War. ch. 1-3 {v. 1).— T. Carlyle, Hist, of Fred- erick the Great, bk. 3, eh. 14 (r. 1). A. D. i6i2.— Election of the Emperor Mat- thias. A. D. 1615. — The first newspaper. See Printing and Press: A. D. 1612-1650. A. D. 1618-1620.— The Thirty Years War: Hostilities in Bohemia precipitated by Ferdi- nand. — His election to the imperial throne and his deposition in Bohemia. — Acceptance of the Bohemian crown by Frederick, the Pala- tine Elector. — His unsupported situation. — The Treaty of Ulm. — " The emperor was not a little disconcerted when he received the news of what was passing [in Bohemia]. For whence could he receive the aid necessary to put down these revolutionary acts and restore order in Bo- hemia ? Discontent, indeed, was scarcely less formidably expressed even in his Austrian terri- tories, whilst in Hungary its demonstration was equally as serious. Conciliation appeared to be the only means of preserving to the house of Austria that important countrj-, and even the confessor and usual counsellor of the emperor. Cardinal Klesel, the most zealous opponent of the Protestants, advised that course. But such considerations were most strenuously opposed by young Ferdinand. .. . At his instigation, and that of tlie other archdukes, backed by the pope, the pacific Cardinal Klesel was unexpectedly arrested, and charged with a variety of crimes. The intention was to remove him from the pres- ence of the old and weak emperor, who was now without support, and obliged to resign all to the archdukes. From this moment the impotency of the emperor was complete, and all hopes of an amicable pacification of Bohemia lost. The Bohemians, likewise, took to arms, and possessed themselves of every city in their country as far as Budweis and Pilsen, which were still occupied by the imperial troops. They obtained assistance, quite unlooked for, in the person of one who may be regarded as one of the most remarkable heroes of that day. . . . Count Ernest of Mansfield, a warrior from his youth, was of a bold and enter- prising spirit ; he had already encountered many dangers, and had just been raising some troops for the Duke of Savoy against the Spaniards. The duke, who now no longer required them, gave him permission to serve in the cause of the Evangelical L'nion in Germany; and by that body he was despatched with 3,000 men to Bohemia, as having apparently received his ap- pointment from that countrj-. He appeared there quite unexpectedly, and immediately took from the imperial army the important city of Pilsen [November 21, 1618]. . . . The Emperor Matthias died on the 10th of March, 1619 . . . and the Boheniians, who acknowledged his sov- ereignty while living, now resolved to renounce his successor Ferdinand, whose hostile intentions were already too clearly expressed. Ferdinand attained the throne under circumstances the most 1500 GERMANY, 1618-1630. Tlie revolt in Bohemia. GERMANY, 1620. perplexing. Bohemia in arras, and threatening Vienna itself Tvith invasion ; Silesia and Moravia in alliance with them ; Austria mucli disposed to unite with them; Hungary by no means firmly attached, and externally menaced by the Turks; besides which, encountering in every direction the hatred of the Protestants, against whom his zeal was undisguised. . . . Count Thuru ad- vanced upon Vienna with a Bohemian army. . . . He came before Vienna, and his men fired, even upon the imperial castle itself, where Ferdinand, surrounded by open and secret foes, had taken up his quarters. He dared not leave his capital, for by so doing Austria, and with it the preser- vation of the empire itself, must have been sacri- ficed. But his enemies looked upon him as lost ; and they already spoke of confining him in a convent, and educating his children in the Prot- estant faith. . . . Count Thurn was obliged soon to return to Bohemia, as Prague was menaced by the armies of Austria, and Ferdinand availed himself of this moment in order to undertake another hazardous and daring project. . . . He . . . resolved to proceed to Frankfort to attend the election of emperor. The spiritual electors had been gained over ; Saxony also adhered closely to the house of Austria; Brandenburg was not unfriendly ; hence the opposition of the palatinate alone against him could accomplish nothing; accordingly Ferdinand was unanimously chosen emperor on the 28th of August, 1619." Just two days previously, on the 26th of August, the Bohemians, at a general assembly of the states, had formally deposed Ferdinand from the king- ship of their nation, and proceeded to elect an- other king in his place. "The Catholics pro- posed the Duke of Savoy and Maximilian of Bavaria, whilst, in the Protestant interest, the Elector John George of Saxony, and Frederick v., of the palatinate, were put forward. The latter obtained the election, being a son-in-law of King James I. of England, from whom they expected assistance, and who personally was re- garded as resolute, magnanimous, and generous. The incorporated provinces of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia supported the election, and even the Catholic states of Bohemia pledged their fidelity and obedience. Frederick was warned against accepting so dangerous a crown by Saxony, Ba- varia, and even by his father-in-law; but his chaplain, Scultetus, and his own consort, Eliza- beth, who as the daughter of a king aspired to a royal crown, persuaded him with all their influ- ence to accept it. Frederick was accordingly ruled by them, received the regal dignity in Bo- hemia, and was crowned at Prague with great pomp on the 25th of October, 1619. . . . Ferdi- nand in returning from Frankfort passed on to Munich, and there concluded with the Duke of Bavaria that important treaty which secured to Mm the possession of Bohemia. These two princes had been companions in youth, and the Evangelical Union had by several incautious pro- ceedings irritated the duke. Maximilian under- took the chief command in the cause of the Catholic party, and stipulated with the house of Austria that he should be indemnified for every outlay and loss incurred, to the extent even, if necessary, of the surrender of the territories of Austria itself into his hands. With Spain, also, the emperor succeeded in forming an alliance, and the Spanish general, Spinola, received orders to invade the countries of the palatinate from the Netherlands. Subsequently the Elector of Mentz arranged a convention at Miilhausen with the Elector John George of Saxony, the Elector of Cologne, and the Landgrave Lewis of Darm- stadt, wherein it was determined to render all possible assistance to the emperor for the main- tenance of his kingdom and the imperial dignity. Frederick, the new Bohemian king, was now left with no other auxiliary but the Evangelical Union; for the Transylvanian prince, Bethlen Gabor, was, notwithstanding all his promises, a very dubious and uncertain allj'.whilst the troops he sent into Moravia and Bohemia were not un- like a horde of savage banditti. Meanwhile the union commenced its preparations for war, as well as the league. The whole of Germany re- sembled a grand depot for recruiting. Every eye was directed to the Swabian district, where the two armies were to meet ; there, however, at Ulm, on the 3rd of July, 1620, they unexpectedly entered into a compact, in which the forces of the union engaged to lay down their arms, and both parties pledged each other to preserve peace and tranquillity. The unionists felt them- selves too weak to maintain the contest, since Saxony was now likewise against them, and Spinola threatened them from the Netherlands. It was, however, a great advantage for the em- peror, that Bohemia was excluded from this treaty, for now the forces of the league were at liberty to aid him in subjugating his royal ad- versary. Maximilian of Bavaria, therefore, im- mediately took his departure, and on his way reduced the states of Upper Austria to the obedi- ence due to Ferdinand, joined the imperial army, and made a spirited attack upon Bohemia. On the other side, the Elector of Saxony took pos- session of Lusatia in the name of the emperor. " — F. Kohlrausch, Hist, of Germany, ch. 22. Also in: S. R. Gardiner, Eist. of England, 1603-1642, ch. 29-32 (». 3).— W. Coxe, Hist, of the House of Austria, ch. 46^8 {v. 2). A. D. 1618-1700.— The Rise of Prussia. See Puussi.\ : A. D. 1618-1700. A. D. 1620.— The Thirty Years War: Dis- appointment of the Bohemians in their elected king. — Frederick's offensive Calvinism. — De- feat of his army before Prague. — Loss of Bohemian liberties. — Prostration of Protes- tantism. — "The defection of the Union acceler- ated the downfall of Frederick ; but its cordial support could scarcely have hindered it. For the Bohemians had been disappointed in their king, disappointed in the strength they had expected from him through his connexions, equally dis- appointed in the man, and in the hopes of pro- tection and sympathy which they had expected from him in the exercise of their religion. Within a month of his coronation the metropolitan church was spoiled of its images, the crucifix cut in pieces, the statues of the saints cast out, broken, and burnt, the ornaments used in divine service, and venerable in the eyes of Catholics and Lu- therans alike, scattered here and there, and turned upside down with contempt and execration. These proceedings, whicli were presumed, not without reason, to have the king's authority — for during their enactment the court chaplain addressed the people in praise of this purga- tion of the temple — called forth loud com- plaints and increased the disaffection which, more than any external force brought against Fred- erick, produced his ruin. Early in November 1501 GERMANY, 1620. Fall of the Elector Palatine. GERMANY, 1621-1633. Maximilian appeared before Prague, and found the Bohemians, under Christian van Anhalt, sliil- fully and strongly posted on the Weissenberg [White Mountain] to offer battle. The cautious Bucquoi would have declined the offer, and at- tacked the city from another point; but an en- thusiastic friar who broke in upon the confer- ence of the leaders, and, exliibiting a mutilated image of the Virgin, reproached tliem with their liesitation, put to flight all timid counsels. The battle began at twelve o'clock. It was a Sunday, the octave of the festival of All Saints [Novem- bers, 1620]. . . . In the Catholic army Bucquoi was at the head of the Imperial division. Tilly commanded in chief, and led the front to the battle. He was received with a heavy fire; and for half an hour the victory trembled in the bal- ance: then the Hungarians, who had been de- feated by the Croats the day before, fled, and all the efforts of the Duke of Saxe Weimar to rally them proved fruitless. Soon the whole Bo- hemian army, Germans, English, horse and foot, fled in disorder. One gallant little band of Moravians only, under the Count of Thurn and the young Count of Sehlick, maintained their position, and, with the exception of their leaders, fell almost to a man. The battle lasted only an hour; but the victory was not the less complete. A hundred banners, ten guns, and a rich spoil fell into the hands of the victors. Four thou- sand of the Bohemian army, but scarcely as many hundreds of their opponents (if we may believe their account), lay dead upon the field. . . . Frederick had returned from the army the day before, with the intelligence that the Ba- varians were only eight (English) miles distant ; but relying on the 28,000 men which he liad to cover his capital, he felt that night no uneasi- ness. . . . He had invited tlie English ambas- sadors to dine; and he remained to entertain them. After dinner he mounted his horse to ride to the Star Park ; but before he could get out of the city gate, he was met with the news of the total overthrow of his army. His negotiations with Maximilian failing, or receiving no answer, the next morning he prepared for flight. . . . Accompanied by his queen. Van Anhalt, the Prince of Hohenlohe, and the Count of Thurn, he made a precipitate retreat from Prague, leav- ing behind him the insignia of that monarchy which he had not the wisdom to firmly establish, nor resolution to defend to the last. It must be confessed, however, that his position, after the defeat at Prague, was not altogether so promis- ing, and consequently his abandonment of his capital not altogether so pusillanimous, as some have represented." — B. Chapman, Hid of Ous- tavus Adolphiis. ch. 5. — "Frederick fled for his life through North Germany, till he found a refuge at the Hague. The reign of the Bohemian aristocracy was at an end. . . . The chiefs per- ished on the scaffold. Their lands were confis- cated, and a new German and Catholic nobility arose. . . . The Royal Charter was declared to have been forfeited by rebellion, and the Protes- tant churches in the towns and on the royal estates had nothing to depend on but the will of the conqueror. The ministers of one great body — the Bohemian Brethren — were expelled at once. The Lutherans were spared for a time." — S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Tears' War, ch. 3, sect. 1. Also in : C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti- Reformation in Bofiemia, v. 1, ch. 9. — See, also, Bohemia; A. D. 1621-1648; and Hungary: A.D. 1606-1660. A. D. 1621-1623.— The Thirty Years War: The Elector Palatine placed under the ban. — Dissolution of the Evangelical Union. — In- vasion and conquest of the Palatinate. — Trans- fer of the electoral dignity to the Duke of Bavaria. — "Ferdinand, though firm, patient, and resigned in adversity, was stern, vengeful, and overbearing in prosperity. He was urged by many motives of resentment, policy, and zeal to complete the ruin of the elector Palatine, and he did not possess sufficient magnanimity to resist the temptation. Having squandered away the confiscated property among his Jesuits and favourites, he had still many allies and adherents whose fidelity he was desirous to reward ; he was anxious to recover Upper Au.stria, which he had mortgaged to the duke of Bavaria, as a pledge for the expenses of the war ; he wished to regain possession of Lusatia; and he was bound in honour to satisfy the elector of Saxony for his opportune assistance. . . . These motives over- bearing all considerations of justice and pru- dence, Ferdinand published the ban of the em- pire [January 22, 1621], of his own authority, against the elector Palatine and his adherents the prince of Anhalt, the count of Hohenlohe, and the duke of Jaegendorf. The execution of this informal sentence he intrusted to the archduke Albert, as possessor of the circle of Burgundy, and to the duke of Bavaria, commanding the former to occupy the Lower, and the latter the Upper Palatinate. This vigorous act was in- stantly followed by the most decisive effects; for the Protestants were terrified by the prospect of sharing the fate of the unfortunate elector. The members of the union now felt the fatal conse- quences of their own indecision and want of fore- sight. . . . Threatened at once by Spinola [com- manding the Spanish auxiliaries from the Nether- lands] and the duke of Bavaria, and confounded bj' the growing power of the emperor, they vied in abandoning a confederacy which exposed them to his vengeance. On the 12th of April, 1621, they concluded at Mentz a treaty of neutrality, by which they promised not to interfere in the affairs of the Palatinate, agreed to disband their troops within a month, and to enter into no new confederacy to the disadvantage of the emperor. This dishonourable treaty was followed by the dissolution of the union, which, on its expiration, was not renewed. During these events, Spinola, having completed the reduction of the Lower Palatinate, was occupied in the siege of Franken- dahl, which was on the point of surrendering, and its capture must have been followed by the submission of Heidelberg and Manheim. The duke of Bavaria had been still more successful in the Upper Palatinate, and had rapidly subju- gated the whole province, together with the dis- trict of Cham. The elector Palatine, deserted by the Protestant union, and almost abttndoned by his relatives, the kings of England and Den- mark, owed the first revival of his hopes of res- toration to Mansfeld, an illegitimate adventurer, with no other resources than plunder and devas- tation. Christian of Brunswick, administrator of Halberstadt, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but equally an adventurer, and equally destitute of territory or resources, espoused his cause, as well from ties of affinity [he was the cousin of Elizabeth, the electress Palatine, or 1502 GERMANY, 1621-1633. Cov'^nest of the Palatinate, GERMANY, 1631-1623. queen of Bohemia, as she preferred to be called] as from a chivalrous attachment to his beautiful consort; and George Frederic, margrave of Ba- den, even abdicated his dignity to devote him- self to his support." Mansfeld, who had held his ground iu Bohemia for nearly a year after the battle of the White Mountain, now became hard pressed there by Tilly, and suddenly es- caped by forced marches (October, 1621,) into the Lower Palatinate. ' ' Here he found a more fa- vourable field of action; for Spiuola being re- called with the greater part of the Spanish forces, had left the remainder to Gonzales de Cordova, who, after reducing several minor fortresses, was pressing the siege of Frankendahl. The name of the brave adventurer drew to his standard multitudes of the troops, who had been disbanded by the Protestant union, and he was joined by a party of English, who had been sent for the de- fence of the Palatinate. Finding himself at the head of 20,000 men, he cleared the country in his passage, relieved Frankendahl. and provided for the safety of Heidelberg and Mauheim. Unable, however, to subsist in a district so recently the seat of war, he turned into Alsace, where he in- creased his forces ; from thence he Invaded the neighbouring bishoprics of Spire and Strasburgh, levying heavy contributions, and giving up the rich domains of those sees to the devastations of his troops. Encouraged by this gleam of hope, the elector Palatine quitted his asylum in Hol- land, passed in disguise through Loraine and Alsace, joined Mansfeld, and gave his name and countenance to this predatory army." Mans- feld, recrossing the Rhine, effected a junction with the margrave of Baden; and Christian of Brunswick, after pillaging the rich sees of Lower Saxony, was on his way with a considerable force to unite with both. "At tlie same time the duke of Wirtemberg, the landgrave of Hesse, and other Protestant princes, began to arm, and hopes were even entertained of the revival of the Protestant union. Tilly, who had followed Mans- feld from Bohemia, had in vain endeavoured to prevent his junction with the margrave of Baden. Defeated at Mingelsheim by Mansfeld, on the 29th of April, 1622, he had been reduced to the defensive, and iu this situation saw a powerful combination rising on every side against the house of Austria. He waited therefore for an opportunity of attacking those enemies singly, whom he could not resist when united, and that opportunity was presented by the separation of the margrave of Baden from Mansfeld, and his attempt to penetrate into Bavaria. Tilly sud- denly drew together the Spanish troops, and with this accession of force defeated, on the 6th of May, the margrave at Wimpfen, with the loss of half his army, and took his whole train of artil- lery and military chest. Leaving Mansfeld em- ployed in the siege of Ladenburgh, he next di- rected his attention to Christian of Brunswick, routed him on the 20th of June, at Hoechst [Hochst], as he was crossing the Main, pursued him till his junction with Mansfeld, and drove their united forces beyond the Rhine, again to seek a refuge and subsistence in Alsace. These successes revived the cause of Ferdinand; the margrave of Baden retired from the contest ; the duke of Wirtemberg and the other Protestant princes suspended their armaments ; and although Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick laid siege to Saverne, and evinced a resolution to maintain the contest to the last extremity, yet the elector Palatine again gave way to that weakness which had already lost him a crown." He was per- suaded by his witless father-in-law, James I. of England, to trust his cause to negotiations in which the latter was being duped by the em- peror. He consented, accordingly, "to disavow his intrepid defenders, to dismiss them from his service, to retire again into Holland, and wait the mercy of the emperor. By this disavowal, JIansfeld and Christian were left without a name to countenance their operations; and after vari- ous negotiations, feigned or real, for entering into the service of the emperor, Spain, or France, they accepted the overtures of the Prince of Orange and forced their way through the Spanish array which attempted to oppose their passage, to join at Breda the troops of the United Prov- inces. The places in Alsace and the bishopric of Spire which had been occupied by the enemy were recovered by the archduke Leopold; and Tilly, having completed the conquest of the Palatinate by the capture of Heidelberg and Manheim, directed his attacks against the forces which Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick had again assembled. After a short continuance in Holland, Mansfeld, in November, had led his predatory army into the rich province of East Friesland, conquered the principal fortresses, and extorted enormous contributions from the duke, who was in alliance with Spain. On the other hand. Christian, passing into Lower Sax- ony, persuaded the states of the circle to collect an army of observation amounting to 12,000 men, and intrust him with the command ; and he soon increased this army to almost double that num- ber, by the usual incitements of pillage and plunder. These levies attracting the attention of the emperor, his threats, together with the advance of Tilly, compelled the Saxon states to dismiss Christian and his army. Tlius left a second time without authority, he pushed towards Westphalia, with the hope of joining Mansfeld and renewing hostilities in the Palatinate; his design was however anticipated by Tilly, who overtook him at Loen [or Stadtlohn], in the dis- trict of Munster, and defeated him with the loss of 6,000 killed and 4,000 prisoners, in August, 1623. The victorious general then turned towards East Friesland ; but Mansfeld, who had hitherto maintained himself in that country, avoided an unequal contest by disbanding his troops, and withdrawing into Holland, in January, 1624 . . . Having despoiled the elector Palatine of all his dominions, and delivered himself from his enemies in Germany, Ferdinand had proceeded to carry his plans into execution, by transferring the electoral dignity to the duke of Bavaria, and dividing the conquered territories among his ad- herents. ... He gained the elector of Saxony, by promising him the revenues and perhaps the cession of Lusatia; and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt, by offering to favour his pretensions to the succession of Marburgh, which he was contesting with the landgrave of Hesse Cassel. . . . Having thus gained those whose opposition was most likely to frustrate his design, he paid little regard to the feeble threats of James, and to the remonstrances of the king of Denmark. ... He summoned, on the 25th of February, 1623, a meeting of the electors and princes who were most devoted to his cause at Ratisbon, and, in concurrence with the majority of this irregular 1503 GERMANY, 1631-1623. Wall€7i$tein. GERMANY, 1634-1626. assembly, transferred the Palatine electorate, with all its honours, privileges, and offices, to Maximilian, duke of Bavaria. To keep up, how- ever, the hopes of the elector Palatine and his adherents, and not to drive his family and connec- tions to desperation, the whole extent of the plan was not developed ; the partition of his territories was deferred, the transfer of the electorate was made only for the life of Maximilian, and the rights of the sons and collateral heirs of the un- fortunate elector were expressly reserved. " — W. Coxe, Hist, of the House of Austria, ch. 49 (v. 2). Also m : A. Gindely, Hist, of the Thirty Tears' War. V. 1, ch. 7.— F. Schiller, Hist, of the Thirty Tears' War. bk. 3.— C. R. Markham, The Fight- ing Veres, pt. 2, ch. 3. A. D. 1624-1626. — The Thirty Years War: Alliance of England, Holland, and Denmark to support the Protestant cause. — Creation of the imperial army of Wallenstein, and its first campaigns. — " Had the Emperor been as wise as he was resolute, it is probable that, victorious in every direction, he might have been able to con- clude a permanent peace with the Protestant Party. But the bigotry which was a very part of his nature was spurred on by his easy triumphs to refuse to sheathe the sword until heresy had been rooted out from the land. In vain did the Protestant princes, who had maintained a selfish and foolish neutrality, remonstrate against the continuance of hostilities after the avowed ob- ject for which those hostilities were undertaken had been gained. In the opinion of Ferdinand II. the real object still remained to be accom- plished. Under these critical circumstances the emigrants, now grown numerous [see Bohemia: A. 6. 1621-1648], and the awakened Protestant princes, earnestly besought the aid of a foreign power. It was their representations which at length induced three nations of the reformed faith — England, Holland, and Denmark — to ally themselves to assist their oppressed brethren [see, also, France: A. D. 1624-1626]. England agreed to send subsidies, Holland to supply troops. The command of the delivering army was confided to Christian IV. , King of Denmark (162.5). He was to be supported in Germany by the partisan Mansfeldt, by Prince Christian of Brunswick, and by the Protestants of Lower Saxony, who had armed themselves to resist the exactions of the Emperor. Ferdinand II., after vainly endeavouring to ward off hostilities by negotiations, despatched Tilly to the Weser to meet the enemy. Tilly followed the course of that river as far as Minden, causing to be occu- pied, as he marched, the places which com- manded its passage. Pursuing his course north- wards, he crossed the river at Neuburg (midway between Minden and Bremen), and occupied the principality of Kalenberg. The King of Den- mark was near at hand, in the Duchy of Bruns- wick, anxious, for the moment, to avoid a battle. Tilly, superior to him in numbers, was as anxious to fight one. As though the position of the King of Denmark were not already sufficiently embarrassing, the Emperor proceeded at this period to make it almost unendurable by launch- ing upon him likewise an imperial army. . . . TJp to the period of the complete overthrow and expulsion from the Palatinate of Frederic V., ex-King of Bohemia, Ferdinand had been in- debted for all his successes to Maximilian of Ba- varia. It was Maximilian who, as head of the Holy League, had reconquered Bohemia for the Emperor: it was Maximilian's general, Tilly, who had driven the Protestant armies from the Palatinate ; and it was the same general wlio was now opposing the Protestants of'the north in the lands watered by the Weser. ilaximilian had been rewarded by the cession to him of the Pala- tinate, but it was not advisable that so near a neighbour of Austria should be made too strong. It was this feeling, this jealou.sy of Maximilian, which now prompted Ferdinand to raise, for the first time in this war, an imperial army, and to send it to the north. This army was raised by and at the expense of Albert Wenzel Eusebius of Waldstein, known in history as Wallenstein. A Czech by nationality, born in 1.583 of noble pa- rents, who belonged to one of the most advanced sects of the reformers but who died whilst their son was yet young, Wallenstein had, when yet a child, been committed to the care of his uncle, Albert Slavata, an adherent of the Jesuits, and by him educated at Olmlitz in the strictest Catho- lic faith." By marrying, first, a rich widow, who soon died, and then an heiress, daughter of Count Harrach, and by purchasing with the for- tune thus acquired many confiscated estates, he had become possessed of enormous wealth. He had already won distinction as a soldier. "For his faithful services, Ferdinand in 1633 nomi- nated Wallenstein to be Prince, a title changed, the year following, into that of Duke of Fried- land. At this time the yearly income he de- rived from his various estates, all economically managed, was calculated to be 30,000,000 florins — little short of £2,500,000." Wallenstein now, in 1625, "divining his master's wishes, and ani- mated by the ambition born of natural ability, offered to raise and maintain, at his own cost, an army of 50,000 men, and to lead it against the enemy. Ferdinand eagerly accepted the offer. Named Generalissimo and. Field Marshal in July of the same year, Wallenstein inarched at the head of 30,000 men, a number which increased almost daily, first to the Weser, thence, after noticing the positions of Tilly and of King Chris- tian, to the banks of the Elbe, where he wintered. . . . In the spring . . . Mansfeldt, with the view to prevent a junction between Till}- and Wallen- stein, marched against the latter, and. though his troops were fewer in number, took up a position at Dessau in full view of the imperial camp, and there intrenched himself. Here Wal- lenstein attacked (35 April 1636) and completely defeated him. Not discouraged by this over- throw, and still bearing in mind the main object of the campaign, Mansfeldt fell back into Bran- denburg, recruited there his army, called to him- self the Duke of Saxc-Weimar and tlien sud- denly dashed, by forced marches, towards Silesia and iloravia, with the intention of reaching Hun- gary, where Bethlen Gabor had promised to meet him." Wallenstein followed and "pressed him so hard that, though Mansfeldt did effect a junc- tion with Bethlen Gabor, it was with but the skeleton of his arm}'. Despairing of success against numbers vastly superior, Bethlen Gabor withdrew from his new colleague, and Mans- feldt, reduced to despair, disbanded his remain- ing soldiers, and sold his camp-equipage to supply himself with the means of flight (September) [see Hungary: A. D. 1606-1660]. He died soon after (30th November). . . . Wallenstein then retraced his steps to the north. Meanwhile Tilly, 1504 GERMANY, 1624-1636. Wallenstein. GERMANY, 1627-1639. left to deal with Christian IV., had followed that prince into Lower Saxony, had caught, at- tacked and completely defeated him at Lutter (am Barenberge), the 37th July 1626. This vic- tory gave him complete possession of that dis- affected province, and, despite a vigorous attempt made by the Margrave George Frederic of Baden to wrest it from liim, he held it till the return of Wallenstein from the pursuit of Mansfeldt. As two stars of so great a magnitude could not shine in the same hemisphere, it was then de- cided that Tilly should carry the war into Hol- land whilst to AVallenstein should be left the honour of dealing with the King of Denmark and the Protestant princes of the north.' —G. B. Malleson, T/ie BaUle-fiehls of Oermamj, cIi. 1. Also IN: W. Zimmermann, Popular Hist, of Germany, bk. 5, ch. 2 (e. 4). A. D. 1627-1629.— The Thirty Years War: Wallenstein's campaign against the Danes.— His power and his oppression in Germany.— The country devoured hy his array.—Unsuc- cessful siege of Stralsund.— First succor from the king of Svyeden.- The Peace of Lubeck. — The Edict of Restitution.— " Wallenstein opened the campaign of 1627 at the head of a refreshed and well-equipped army of 40,000 men His first effort was directed against Silesia ; and the Danish troops, few in number, and ill com- manded, gave way at his approacli. To prevent the fusitives from infringing on the neutrality of Bralidenburg, lie occupied the whole elector- ate. Mecklenburg and Pomerania soon shared the same fate. Remonstrances and assurances of perfect neutrality were treated with absolute scorn; and Wallenstein declared, in his usual haughty style, that ' the time had arrived for dis- pensing altogether with electors ; and that Ger- many ought to be governed like France and Spain, by a single and absolute sovereign.' In his rapid marcluowards the frontiers of Holstein, he acted fully up to the principle he had laid down, and naturally exercised despotic power as the representative of the absolute monarch of whom he spoke. . . . He . . . followed upthe Danes, defeated their armies in a series of actions near Heiligenhausen, overran the whole peninsula of .Jutland before the end of the campaign, and forced the unhappy king to seek shelter, with the wrecks of his army, in the islands beyond the Belt . . Brilliant as the campaign of 1627 proved in its general result, few very striking feats of arms were performed during its progress. Now it was that the princes and states of Lower Germany began to feel the consequences of their pusillanimous conduct; and the very provinces which had just before refused to raise troops for their own protection, were obliged to submit, without a murmur, to every species of insult and exaction. Wallenstein's army, aug- mented to 100,000 men, occupied the whole coun- try and the lordly leader following, on a far greater scale, the principle on which Mansfeld had acted, made the war maintain the war, and trampled alike on the rights of sovereigns and of subjects. And terrible was the penalty now paid for the short-sighted policy which avarice and cowardice had suggested, and which cunning had vainly tried to disguise beneath affected philanthropy, and a generous love of peace. Provided with imperial authority, and at the head of a force that could no longer be resisted, Wallenstein made the empire serve as a vast 95 1505 storehouse, and wealthy treasury for the benefit of the imperial army. He forbade eveu sover- eigns and electors to raise supplies in their own countries, and was justly termed 'the princes scourge, and soldiers' idol.' The system of living by contriburions had completely demoralised the troops. Honour and discipline were entirely gone ; and it was only beneath the eye of the stern and unrelenring commander, that anything like order continued to be observed. Dissipation and profligacy reigned in all ranks; bands of dissolute persons accompanied every regiment, and helped to extinguish the last sparks of morality in the breast of the soldier. The gen- erals levied arbitrary taxes; the inferior officers followed the example of their superiors; and the privates, soon ceasing to obey those whom they ceased to respect, plundered in every direction ; while blows, insults, or death awaited all who dared to resist. . . . The sums extorted, in this manner, prove that Germany must have been a wealthy country in the 17th century; for the money pressed out of some districts, by the im- perial troops, far exceeds anything which the same quarters could now be made to furnish. Complaints against the author of such evils were of course, not wanting ; but the man com- plained of had rendered the Emperor all-power- ful in Germany : from the Adriatic to tlie Baltic. Ferdinand reigned absolute, as no monarch had reigned since the days of the Othos. This su- premacy was due to Wallenstein alone; and what could the voice of the humble and oppressed effect against such an offender ? Or when did the voice of suffering nations, arrest the progress of power and ambition ? During the winter that followed on the campaign of 1627, Wallenstein repaired to Prague, to claim [and to receive] from the Emperor, who was residing in the Bohemian capital, additional rewards for the im- portant services so lately rendered. The boon solicited was nothing less than the Duchy of Mecklenburg, which was to be taken from its legitimate princes, on the ground of their haying joined the King of Denmark, and bestowed on the successful general. . . . Hitherto the ocean had alone arrested the progress of Wallenstein: a fleet was now to be formed, which should en- able him to give laws beyond the Belts, and per- haps beyond the Baltic also. Every seaport in Mecklenburg and Pomerania is ordered to be taken possession of and fortified. . . . Tlie siege of Stralsund, which was resolved upon early in 1628 constitutes one of the most memorable operations of the war. Not merely because it furnishes an additional proof of what may be effected by skill, courage and resolution, against vastly superior forces, but because its result m- fluenced in an eminent degree, some of the most important events that followed. When Wallen- stein ordered the seaports along the coast of Pomerania to be occupied, Stralsund, claiming its privilege as an imperial and Hanseatic free town, refused to admit his troops. . . . After a good deal of negotiation, which only cost the people of Stralsund some large sums of money, paid away in presents to the imperial oflicers, Arnheim invested the place on the 7th of May with 8,000 men. . . . The town . . . , unable to obtain assistance from the Duke of Pomerania, the lord superior of the province, who, how- ever willing, had no means of furnishing relief, placed itself under the protection of Sweden : and GERMANY, 162T-1639. Dismissal of Wallensiein, GERMANY, 1630. Gustavus Adolplnis. fully sensible of the impor- tance of the place, immediately dispatched the celebrated David Leslie, at the liead of 600 men, to aid in its defence. Count Brahe, with 1,000 more, soon followed; so that when Wallenstein reached the army on the 2Tth of June, he found himself opposed by a garrison of experienced soldiers, who had already retaken all the out- works which Arnheim had captured in the first instance. . . . Rain began to fall in such tor- rents that the trenches were entirely filled, and the flat moor ground, on which the army was encamped, became completely inundated and untenable. The proud spirit of Friedland, un- used to yield, still persevered; but sickness attacked the troops, and the Danes having landed at Jasmund, he was obliged to march against them with the best part of his forces ; and in fact to raise the siege. . . . The Danes having effected their object, in causing the siege of Stral- sund to be raised, withdrew their troops from Jasmund, and landed them again at Wolgast. Here, however, Wallenstein surprised, and de- feated them with great loss. . . . There being on all sides a willingness to liring the war to an end, peace was . . . concluded at Lubeck in January 1629. By this treaty the Danes re- covered, without reserve or indemnity, all their former possessions; only pledging themselves not again to interfere in the affairs of the Empire. . . . The peace of Lubeck left Wallenstein abso- lute master in Germany, and without an equal in greatness: his spirit seemed to hover like a storm-charged cloud over the land, crushing to the earth every hope of liberty and successful resistance. JIansfeld and Christian of Brunswick had disappeared from the scene; Frederick V. had retired into obscurity. Tilly and Pappen- heim, his former rivals, now condescended to receive favours, and to solicit pensions and re- wards through the medium of his intercession. Even Maximilian of Bavaria was second in greatness to the all-dreaded Duke of Friedland: Europe held no uncrowned head that was his equal in fame, and no crowned head that sur- passed him in power. . . . Ferdinand, elated with success, had neglected the opportunity, again afforded him by the peace of Lubeck, for restoring tranquillity to the empire. . . . Instead of a general peace, Ferdinand signed the fatal Edict of Restitution, by which the Protestants were called upon to restore all the Catholic Church property they had sequestrated since the religious pacification of 1555 : such sequestration being, according to the Emperor's interpretation, contrary to the spirit of the treaty of Passau. The right of long-established possession was here entirely overlooked ; and Ferdinand forgot, in his zeal for the church, that he was actually set- ting himself up as a .iudge, in a case in which he was a party also. It was farther added, that, according to the same treaty, freedom of depar- ture from Catholic countries, was the only privi- lege which Protestants had a right to claim from Catholic princes. This decree came like a thunder- burst over Protestant Germany. Two archbishop- ricks, 13 bishopricks, and a countless number of convents and clerical domains, which the Prot- estants had confiscated, and applied to their own purposes, were now to be surrendered. Imperial commissioners were appointed to carry the man- date into eflEect, and, to secure immediate obedi- ence, troops were placed at the disposal of the new officials. Wherever these functionaries appeared, the Protestant service was instantly suspended; the churches deprived of their bells ; altars and pulpits pulled down; all Protestant books, bibles and catechisms were seized ; and gibbets were erected to terrify those who might be dis- posed to resist. All Protestants who refused to change their religion were expelled from Augs- burg : sununary proceedings of the same kind were resorted to in other places. Armed with ab- solute power, the commissioners soon proceeded from reclaiming the property of the church to seize that of individuals. The estates of all per- sons who had served under Mansfeld, Baden, Christian of Brunswick; of all who had aided Frederick V., or rendered themselves obnoxious to the Emperor, were seized and confiscated. . . . The Duke of Friedland, who now ruled with dictatorial sway over Germany, had been ordered to carry the Edict of Restitution into effect, in all the countries occupied by his troops. The task, if we believe historians, was executed with unbending rigour." — J. Mitchell, Life of Wallenstein, eh. 3-3. Also in : L. Hausser, The Period of the Refor- mation.. 1517 to 1648, ch. 33. A. D. 1627-1631. — War of the Emperor and Spain with France, over the succession to the duchy of Mantua. See Italy: A. D. 1637- 1631. A. D. 1630.— The Thirty Years War : Uni- versal hostility to Wallenstein. — His dismis- sal by the Emperor. — The rising of a new champion of Protestantism in Sweden. — ■Wal- lenstein had ever shown great toleration in his own domains; but it is not to be denied that . . . he aided to carry out the edict [of Restitution] in the most barbarous and relentless manner. It would be as tedious as painful to dwell upon all the cruelties which were committed, and the op- pression that was exercised, by the imperial com- missioners ; but a spirit of resistance was aroused in the hearts of the German people, which only waited for opportunity to display itself. Nor was it alone against the emperor that wrath and indignation was excited. Wallenstein drew down upon his head even more dangerous enmity than that which sprung up against Ferdinand. He ruled in Germany with almost despotic sway; for the emperor himself seemed at this time little more than a tool in his hands. His manners were unpopular, stern, reserved, and gloomy. . . . Princes were kept waiting in his ante-cham- ber ; and all petitions and remonstrances against his stern decrees were treated with the mortifying scorn which adds insult to injury. The mag- nificence of his train, the splendor of his house- hold, the luxury and profusion that spread every where around him, afforded coutinudl sources of envy and jealous hate to the ancient nobility of the empire. The Protestants throughout the land were his avowed and implacable enemies; and the Roman Catholic princes viewed him with fear and suspicion. JIaximiliau of Bavaria, whose star had waned under the growing luster of Wallensteiu's renown, who had lost that au- thority in the empire which he knew to be due to his services and his genius, solely by the rise and influence of Wallenstein, and whose am- bitious designs of ruling Germany through an emperor dependent upon him for power, had been frustrated entirely by the genius which placed the imperial throne upon a firm and 1506 GERMANY, 1630. 77te coming of Gustavus Adolphus. GERMANY, 1630-1631. independent basis, took no pains to conceal his hostility to the Duke of Friedland. . . . Though the soldiery still generally loved him, their offi- cers hated the hand that put a limit to the op- pression by which they throve, and would fain have resisted its power. . . . While these feel- lugs were gathering strength in Germany ; while Wallenstein, with no friends, though man)' sup- porters, saw himself an object of jealousy or hatred to the leaders of every party throughout the empire ; and while the suppressed but cher- ished indignation of all Protestant Germany was preparing for the emperor a dreadfid day of reckoning, events were taking place in other countries which hurried on rapidly the dangers that Wallenstein had foreseen. In France, a weak king, and a powerful, politic, and relent- less minister, appeared in undissembled hostility to the house of Austria ; and the famous Cardi- nal de Richelieu busied himself, successfully, to raise up enemies to the German branch of that family. ... In Poland, Sigismund, after vainly contending with Gustavus Adolphus, and re- ceiving an inefficient aid from Germany, was anxious to conclude the disastrous war with Sweden. Richelieu interfered; Oxenstiern ne- gotiated on the part of Gustavus; and a truce of six years was concluded in August, 1629, by which the veteran and victorious Swedish troops were set free to act in any other direction. A great jsart of Livonia was virtually ceded to Gus- tavus, together with the towns and territories of Memel, Braunsberg and Elbingen, and the strong fortress of Pillau. At the same time, Richelieu impressed upon the mind of Gustavus the honor, the advantage, and the necessit}' of reducing the immense power of the emperor, and delivering the Protestant states of Germany from the oppression under which they groaned. . . . Confident in his own powers of mind and warlike skill, sup- ported b)' the love and admiration of his people, relying on the valor and discipline of his troops, and foreseeing all the mighty combinations which were certain to take place in his favor, Gustavus hesitated but little. He consulted with his min- isters, indeed heard and answered every objec- tion that could be raised; and then applied to the Senate at Stockholm to insure that his plans were approved, and that his efforts would be seconded by his people. His enterprise met with the most enthu.siastic approbation; and then suc- ceeded all the bustle of active preparation. . . . While this storm was gathering in the North, while the towns of Sweden were bristling with arms, and her ports filled with ships, Ferdinand was driven or [jersuaded to an act the most fatal to himself, and the most favorable to the King of Sweden. A Diet was summoned to meet at Ratisbon early in the year 1680 ; and the chief object of the emperor in taking a step so danger- ous to the power he had really acquired, and to the projects so boldly put forth in his name, seems to have been to cause his son to be elected King of the Romans. . . . The name of the archduke. King of Hungary, is proposed to the Diet for election as King of the Romans, and a scene of indescribable confusion and murmuring takes place. A voice demands that, before any such election is considered, the complaints of the people of Germany against the imperial armies shall be heard ; and then a perfect storm of accu- sations pours down. Every sort of tyranny and oppression, every sort of cruelty and exaction. every sort of licentiousness and vice is attributed to the emperor's troops ; but the hatred and the charges all concentrate themselves upon the head of the great commander of the imperial forces; and there is a shout for his instant dismissal. . . . Ferdinand hesitated, and affected much surprise at the charges brought against his general and his armies. He yielded in the end, however; and it is said, upon very good authority, that his ruinous decision was brought about by the arts of the same skillful politician who had conjured up the storm which now menaced the empire from the nortli. Richelieu had sent an embassa- dor to Ratisbon. ... In the train of the embas- sador came the well-known intriguing friar. Father Joseph, the most unscrupulous and cun- ning of the cardinal's emissaries; and he, we are assured, found means to persuade the emperor that, by yielding to the demand of the electors and removing AVallcnstein for a time, he might obtain the election of the King of Hungary, and then reinstate the Duke of Friedland in his com- mand as soon as ])opular anger had subsided. However that might be, Ferdinand, as I have said, yielded, openly expressing his regret at the step he was about to take, and the appre- hensions which he entertained for the conse- quences. Count Questenberg and another noble- man, who had been long on intimate terms with Wallenstein, were sent to the camp to notify to him his removal from command, and to soften the disgrace by assuring him of the emperor's gratitude and affection. " — G. P. R. James, Dark Scenes of History : Wallenstein, ch. 3-4. Also in: S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Tears' War, ch. 7, sect. 3. — A. Gindely, Hist, of the Thirty Tears' War, v. 3, ch. 1. A. D. 1630-1631. — The Thirty Years War: The Coming of Gustavus Adolphus. — His oc- cupation of Pomerania and Brandenburg. — The horrible fate of Magdeburg at the hands of Tilly's ruffians. — "On June 24, 1630, one hundred years, to a day, after the Augsburg Confession was promulgated, Gustavus Adol- phus landed on the coast of Pomerania, near the mouth of the river Peeue, with 13,000 men, vet- eran troops, whose rigid discipline was sustained by their piety, and who were simple-minded, noble, and glowing with the spirit of the battle. He had reasons enough for declaring war against Ferdinand, even if 10,000 of Walleustein's troops had not been sent to aid Sigismund against him. But the controlling motive, in his own mind, was to succor the imperiled cause of religious freedom in Germany. Coming as the protector of the evangelic Church, he expected to be joined by the Protestant princes. But he was disappointed. Only the trampled and tortured people of North Germany, who in their despair were ready for revolts and conspiracies of their own, welcomed him as their deliverer from the bandits of Wal- lenstein and the League. Gustavus Adolphus ap- peared before Stettin, and by threats compelled the old duke, Bogislaw XIV., to open to him his capital city. He then took measures to secure possession of Pomerania. His army grew rapidly, while that of the emperor was widely dispersed, so that he now advanced into Brandenburg. George William, the elector, was a weak prince, though a Protestant, and a brother of the Queen of Sweden ; he was guided by his Catholic chan- cellor, Schwarzenberg, and had painfully striven to keep neutral throughout the war, neither side. 1507 GERMANY, 1630-1631. Tilly's Capture of Madgeburg. GERMANY, 1631. however, respecting his neutrality. In dread of the plans of Gustavus Adolphus concerning Poraerania and Prussia, he held aloof from him. Meanwhile Tilly, general-in-chief of the troops of the emperor and the League, drew near, but suddenly turned aside to New Brandenburg, in the Mecklenburg territory, now occupied by the Swedes, captured it after three assaults, and put the garrison to the sword (1631). He then laid siege to Magdeburg. Gustavus Adolphus took Frankfort-on-the-Oder, where there was an im- perial garrison, and treated it, in retaliation, with the same severity. Tlience, in the spring of 1631, he set out for Berlin. ... In Potsdam he heard of the fall of Magdeburg. He then marched with flying banners into Berlin, and compelled the elector to become his ally. Magdeburg was the strong refuge of Protestantism, and the most important trading centre in North Germany. It had resisted the Augsburg Interim of 1548, and now resisted the Edict of Restitution, rejected the newly appointed prince bishop, Leopold AVilliam, son of the emperor himself, and refused to receive the emperor's garrison. The city was therefore banned by the emperor, and was be- sieged for many weeks by Pappenheim, a gen- eral of the League, who was then reinforced by Tilly himself with his army. Gustavus Adol- phus was unable to make an advance, in view of the equivocal attitude of the two great Protes- tant electors, without exposing his rear to garri- soned fortresses. From Brandenburg as well as Saxony he asked in vain for help to save the Protestant city. Thus Magdeburg fell, Ma_v 10, 1631. The citizens were deceived by a pretended withdrawal of the enemy. But suddenly, at early dawn, the badly guarded fortifications were stormed." — C. T. Lewis, Hist, of Germany, ch. 18, sect. 3-4. — Two gates of the city having been opened by the storming party, "Tilly marched in with part of his infantry. Immediately occu- pying the principal streets, he drove the citizens with pointed cannon into their dwellings, there to await their destiny. They were not long held in suspense ; a word from Tilly decided the fate of Magdeburg. Even a more humane general •would in vain have recommended mercy to such soldiers; but Tilly never made the attempt. Left by their general's silence masters of the lives of all the citizens, the soldiery broke into the houses to satiate their most brutal appetites. The prayers of innocence excited some compassion in the hearts of the Germans, but none in tlie rude breasts of Pappenheim's Walloons. Scarcely had the savage cruelty commenced, when the other gates were thrown open, and the cavalry, with the fearful hordes of the Croats, poured in upon the devoted inhabitants. Here commenced a scene of horrors for which history has no language — poetry no pencil. Neither innocent childhood, nor helpless old age; neither youth, sex, rank, nor beauty, could disarm the fury of the conquerors. AVives were abused in the arms of their husbands, daughters at the feet of their parents; and the defenceless sex exposed to the double sacrifice of virtue and life. No situation, however obscure, or however sacred, escaped the rapacity of the enemy. In a single church fifty- three women were found beheaded. The Croats amused themselves with throwing children into the flames; Pappenheim's Walloons with stab- bing infants at the mother's breast. Some ofli- cers of the League, horror-struck at this dreadful scene, ventured to remind Tilly that he had it in his power to stop the carnage. ' Return in an hour,' was his answer; ' I will see what I can do; the soldier must have some reward for his dan- ger and toils.' These horrors lasted with un- abated fury, till at last the smoke and flames proved a check to the plunderers. To augment the confusion and to divert the resistance of the inhabitants, the Imperialists had, in the com- mencement of the assault, fired the town in sev- eral places. The wind rising rapidlj', spread the flames, till the blaze became universal. Fearful, indeed, was the tumult amid clouds of smoke, heaps of dead bodies, the clash of swords, the crash of falling ruins, and streams of blood. The atmosphere glowed; and the intolerable heat forced at last even the murderers to take refuge in their camp. In less than twelve hours, this strong, populous, and flourishing city, one of the finest in Germany, was reduced to ashes, with the exception of two churches and a few houses. . . . The avarice of the officers had saved 400 of the richest citizens, in the hope of extorting from them an exorbitant ransom. But this humanity was confined to the officers of the League, whom the ruthless barbarity of the Imperialists caused to be regarded as guardian angels. Scarcely had the fury of the flames abated, when the Im- perialists returned to renew the pillage amid the ruins and ashes of the town. Many were suffo- cated by the smoke ; many found rich booty in the cellars, ^^■here the citizens had concealed their more valuable effects. On the 13tli of May, Tilly himself appeared in the town, after the streets had been cleared of ashes and dead bodies. Horrible and revolting to humanity was the scene that presented itself. The living crawling from under the dead, children wandering about with heart-rending cries, calling for their parents ; and infants still sucking the breasts of their life- less mothers. Jlore than 6,000 bodies were thrown into the Elbe to clear the streets; a much greater number had been consumed by the flames. The whole number of the slain was reckoned at not less than 30,000. The entrance of the gen- eral, which took place on the 14th, put a stop to the plunder, and saved the few who had hitherto contrived to escape. About a thousand people were taken out of the cathedral, wliere they had remained three daj'S and two nights, without food, and in momentary fear of death." — F. Schiller, Hist, of the Thirty Tears' War. bk. 3. Also in : Sir E. Cust, Li^vs of the Warriors of the Thirty Tears' War. pt. 1. A. D. 1631 (January). — The Thirty Years ■War : The Treaty of Barvyalde between Gus- tavus Adolphus and the king of France. — ' ' On the 13th of January, 1631, the Treaty of Bar- walde was concluded between France and Sweden. Hard cash had been the principal sub- ject of the negotiation, and Louis XIII. had agreed to pay Gustavus a lump sum of $120,000 in consideration of his recent expenditure, — a further sum of S400,000 a year for six years to come. Until that time, or until a general peace, if such should supervene earlier, Sweden was to keep in the field an army of 30,000 foot and 6,000 horse. The object of the alliance was declared to be ' the protection of their common friends, the security of the Baltic, the freedom of com- merce, the restitution of the oppressed members of the Empire, the destruction of the newly erected fortresses in the Baltic, the North Sea, and in the 1508 GERMANY, 1631. Victories of Gustaims Adolphus. GERMANY, 1631. Grisons territory, so that all should be left in the state in wliicli it was before the German war liad begun. ' Sweden was not to ' violate the Imperial constitution ' where she conquered ; she was to leave the Catholic religion undisturbed in all dis- tricts where she found it existing. She was to observe towards Bavaria and the League — the spoilt darlings of Richelieu's anti-Austrian policy — friendship or neutrality, so far as they would observe it towards her. If, at the end of six years, the objects were not accomplished, the treaty was to be renewed."— ^C. R. L. Fletcher, Ousiavus Adolphus and tfie Struggle of Protestant- ism for Existence, ch, 9. A. D. 1631. — The Thirty Years War: The elector of Brandenburg brought to terms by the king of Sweden. — The elector of Saxony fright- ened into line. — Defeat of Tilly at Leipsig (Breitenfeld). — Effects of the great victory. — "Loud were the cries against Gustavus for not having relieved Magdeburg. To answer them he felt liimself bound to publish a careful apology. In this document he declared, among other things, that if he could have obtained from the Elector of Brandenburg the passage of Kiistrin he might not only have raised the siege of Mag- deburg but have destroyed the whole of the Im- perial array. The passage, however, had been denied him; and though the preservation of Magdeburg so much concerned the Elector of Saxony, he could obtain from him a passage toward it neither by Wittemberg, nor the Bridge of Dessau, nor such assistance in provision and shipping as was necessary for the success of the enterprise. . . . Something more than mere per- suasion had induced the Elector of Brandenburg, after the capture of Francfort, to grant Gustavus possession of Spandau for a mouth. The month expired on the 8th of June ; and the elector de- manded back his stronghold. The king, fettered by liis promise, surrendered it ; but the next day, having marched to Berlin and pointed his guns against the palace, the ladies came forth as medi- ators, and the elector consented both to surrender Spandau again and to pay, for the maintenance of tlie Swedish troops, a monthly subsidy of 30,000 rix-dollars. At the end of May Tilly re- moved from Magdeburg and the Elbe to Ascher- lebea This enabled the king to take Werben, on the confluence of the Elbe anil Havel, where, after the reduction of Tangermllnde and Havelberg, he established his celebrated camp. " In the latter part of July, Tilly made two attacks on the king's camp at AVerben, and was repulsed on both occa- sions with heavy loss. "In the middle of August, Gustavus broke up his camp. His force at that time, according to the muster-rolls, amounted to 13,000 foot, and 8,850 cavalry. He drew towards Leipsig, then threatened by Tilly, who, having been joined at Eisleben by 15,000 men under Fiirstenburg, now possessed an ami}' 40,000 strong to enforce the emperor's ban against the Leipsig decrees [or resolutions of a congress of Protestant princes which had assembled at Leip- sig in February, 1631, moved to some organized common action by the Edict of Restitution] within the limits of the electorate. The Elector of Saxony was almost frightened out of his wits by the impending danger. . . . His grief and rage at the fall of Magdeburg had been so great that, for two days after receiving the news, he would admit no one into his presence. But that dire event only added to his perplexity ; he could resolve neither upon submission, nor upoD vengeance. In May, indeed, terrified by the threats of Ferdinand, he discontinued his levies, and disbanded a part of his troops already en- listed: but in June he sent Arnim to Gustavus with such overtures that the king drank his health, and seemed to have grown sanguine in the hope of his alliance. In July, his courage still rising, he permitted Gustavus to recruit in his dominions. In August, his courage falling again at the approach of Fiirstenburg, he gave liim and his troops a free passage through Thu- ringia. " But now, later in the same month, he sent word to Gustavus Adolphus " that not only Wittemberg but the whole electorate was open to him : that not only his son, but himself, would serve imder the king ; that he would advance one month's payment for the Swedish troops imme- diately, and give security for two monthly pay- ments more. . . . Gustavus rejoiced to find the Duke of Saxony in this temper, and, in pursuance of a league now entered into with him, and the Elector of Brandenburg, crossed the Elbe at Wit- temberg on the 4tk of Septemlter. The Saxons, from 16,000 to 20,000 strong, moving simultane- ously from Torgau, the confederated armies met at Dtiben on the JIulda, three leagues from Leip- sig. At a conference held there, it was debated whether it would be better to protract the war or to hazard a battle. The king took the former side, but yielded to the strong representations of the Duke of Saxony. ... On the 6tli of Septem- ber the allies came within six or eight miles of the enemy, where they halted for the night. . . . Breitenfeld, the place at which Tilly, urged by the Importunity of Pappenheim, had chosen to offer battle, was an extensive plain, in part re- cently ploughed, about a mile from Leipsig and near the cemetery of that city. Leipsig had sur- rendered to Tilly two days before. The Imperial army, estimated at 44,000 men, occupied a rising- ground on the plain. . . . The army was drawn up in one line of great depth, having the infantry in the centre, the cavalry on the wings, accord- ing to the Spanish order of battle. The king subdivided his armj-, about 20,000 strong, into centre and wings, each of which consisted of two lines and a reserve. ... To this disposition is attributed, in a great degree, the success of the day. . . . The tiles being so comparatively shal- low, artillery made less havoc among them. Then, again, the division of the army into small maniples, with considerable intervals between each, gave space for evolutions, and the power of throwing the troops with rapidity wherever their services or support might be foimd re- quisite. . . . The battle began at 13 o'clock. " It only ended with the setting of the sun ; but long before that time the great army of Tilly was sub- stantially destroyed. It had scattered the Saxons easily enough, and sent them flying, with their woi'thless elector; but Gustavus and his disci- plined, brave, powerfully handled Swedes had broken and ruined the stout but clumsy imperial lines. " It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of this success. On the event of that day, as Gustavus himself said, the whole (Protes- tant) cause, ' summa rei,' depended. The success was great in itself. The numbers engaged on either side had been nearly equal. Not so their loss. The Imperial loss in killed and wounded, according to Swedish computation, was from 8,000 to 10,000; according to the enemy's owd 1509 GERMANY, 1631. JVallenstein^s Recall. GERMANY, 1631-1632. account, between 6,000 and 7,000; while all seem to agree that the loss on the side of the allies was only 3,700, of which 3,000 were Saxon. 700 Swedes. Besides, Gustavus won the whole of the enemy's artillery, and more than 100 stan- dards. Then the army of Tilly being annihilated left him free to choose his ne.\t point of attack, almost his next victory." — B. Chapman, Hist, of Griistainis Achlphus, ch. 8.— " The battle of Breitenfeld was an epoch in war, and it was an epoch in history. It was an epoch in war, be- cause first in it was displayed on a great scale the superiority of mobility over weight. It was an epoch in history, because it broke the force upon which the revived Catholicism had relied for the extension of its empire over Europe. . . . ' Germany might tear herself and be torn to pieces for yet another half-generation, but the actual result of the Thirty-Years' War was as good as achieved.'" — C. R. L. Fletcher, Q-usta- vus Adolphus and the Struggle of Protestantism for Existence, ch. 11. Also in: G. B. Malleson, The Battle-fields of Oermany, ch. 1. A. D. 1631-1632.— The Thirty 'Y^ears 'War : Movements and plans of the Swedish king in southern Germany. — Temporary recovery of the Palatinate. — Occupation of Bavaria. — The Saxons in Bohemia. — Battle of the Lech. — Death of Tilly. — Wallenstein's recall. — Siege and relief of Nuremberg. — Battle of Liitzen, and death of Gustavus Adolphus. — "This battle, sometimes called Breitenwald [Breitenfeld], some- times the First Battle of Leipsic, . . . was the first victory on the Protestant side that had been achieved. It was Tilly's first defeat after thirty battles. It tilled with joy those who had hitherto been depressed and hopeless. Cities which had dreaded to declare themselves for fear of the fate of Magdeburg began to lift up their heads, and vacillating princes to think that they could safely take the part which they preferred. Gustavus knew, however, that he must let the Germans do as much as possible for themselves, or he should arouse their national jealousy of him as a foreign conqueror. So he sent the Elector of Saxony to awaken the old spirit in Bohemia. As for him- self, his great counsellor, Oxenstierna, wanted him to march straight on Vienna, but this was not his object. He wanted primarily to deliver the northern states, and to encourage the mer- chant cities, Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremberg, which had all along been Protestant, and to dehver the Palatinate from its oppressors. And, out of mor- tification, a strange ally offered himself, namely, Wallenstein, wlio wanted revenge on the Catho- lic League which had insisted on his dismissal, and the Emperor who had yielded to them. . . . He said that if Gustavus would trust him, he would soon get his old army together again, and chase Ferdinand and the Jesuits beyond the Alps. But Gustavus did not trust him, though he sat quiet at Prague while the Saxons were in pos- session of the city, plundering everywhere, and the Elector sending off to Dresden fifty waggon- loads filled with the treasures of the Eniperor Rudolf's museum. . . . Many exiles returned, and there was a general resumption of the Huss- ite form of worship. Gustavus had marched to Erfurt, and then turned towards the Maine, where there was a long row of those prince bish- oprics established on the frontier by the policy of Charlemagne — Wurtzburg. Bamberg, Fulda, Koln, Triers, Mentz, Wurms, Spiers. These had never been secularised and were popularly called the Priests' Lane. They had given all their forces to the Catholic League, and Gustavus meant to repay himself upon them. He permitted no cruelties, no persecutions; but he levied heavy contributions, and his troops made merry with the good Rhenish wine when he kept his Christmas at Mentz. He invited the dispossessed Elector Palatine to join him, and Frederick started for the camp, after the christening of his thirteenth child. . . . The suite was numerous enough to fill forty coaches, escorted by seventy horse — pretty well for an exiled prince dependent on the bounty of Holland and England. . . . There was the utmost enthusiasm for the Swede in England, and the j\larquess of Hamilton obtained permission to raise a body of volunteers to join the Swedish standards, and in the August of 1631 brought 6.000 English and Scots in four small regiments ; but they proved of little use . . . many dying. ... So far as the King's plans can be understood, he meant to have formed a number of Protestant principalities, and united them in what he called 'Corpus Evangelicorum' around the Baltic and the Elbe, as a balance to the Aus- trian Roman Catholic power in southern Ger- many. Frederick wanted to raise an army of his own people and take the command, but to this Gustavus would not consent, having probably no great confidence in his capacity. All the Palatinate was free from the enemy except the three fortresses of Heidelberg, Frankenthal, and Kreuznach, and the last of these was immediately besieged. ... In the midst of the exultation Frederick was grieved to learn that his beautiful home at Heidelberg had been ravaged by fire, probably by the Spanish garrison in expectation of having to abandon it. But as Tilly was col- lecting his forces again, Gustavus would not wait to master that place or Frankenthal, and recrossed the Rhine. Sir Harry Vane had been sent as ambassador from Charles I. to arrange for the restoration of the Palatinate, the King offering £10,000 a month for the expense of the war, and proposing that if, as was only too prob- able, he should be prevented from performing this promise, some of the fortresses should be left as guarantees in the hands of the Swedes. Frederick took great and petulant offence at this stipulation, and complained, with tears in his eyes, to Vane and the Marquess of Hamilton. ... He persuaded them to suppress this article, though they warned him that if the treaty failed it would be by his own fault. It did in fact fail, for, as usual, the English money was not forth- coming, and even if it had been, Gustavus de- clared that he would be no man's servant for a few thousand pounds. Frederick also refused the King's own stipulation, that Lutherans should enjoy equal rights with Calvinists. ^Moreover, the Swedish success had been considerably more than was desired by his French allies. . . . Louis XIII. was distressed, but Richelieu silenced him, onl}- attempting to make a treaty with the Swedes by which the Elector of Bavaria and the Catholic League should be neutral on condition of the restoration of the bishops. To this, how- ever. Gustavus could not fully consent, and im- posed conditions which the Catholics could not accept. Tilly was collecting his forces and threat- ening Nuremberg, but the Swedes advanced, and he was forced to retreat, so that ii was as a 1510 GERMANY, 1631-1633. Death of Gustavus Adolphus, GERMANY, 1633-1634. deliverer that, oa the 81st March [1632], Gustavus was received in beautiful old Nuremberg with a rapture of welcome. . . . Tilly had taken post on the Lech, and Maximilian was collecting an army in Bavaria. The oljject of Gustavus was now to beat one or other of them before they could join togetlier: so he marched forward, took Donauwerth, and tried to take Ingoldstadt, but found it would occupy too much time, and, though all the generals were of a contrary opin- ion, resolved to attack Tilly and force the pas- sage of the Lech. The Imperialists had fortitied it to the utmost, but in their very teeth the Swedes succeeded in taking advantage of a bend in the river to play on tliem with their formid- able artillery, construct a pontoon bridge, and, after a desperate struggle, effect a passage. Tilly was struck by a cannon-shot in the knee," and died soon afterwards. "On went Gustavus to Augsburg . . . where the Emperor had expelled the Lutheran pastors and cleared the municipal ■council of Protestant burgomasters. In restor- ing the former state of things, Gustavus took a fresh step, making the magistrates not only swear fidelity to him as an ally till the end of the war, but as a sovereign. This made the Ger- mans begin to wonder what were his ulterior views. Then he marched on upon Bavaria, in- tending to bridge the Danube and take Ratisbon, but two strong forts prevented this. . . . He, however, made his waj' into the country between the Inn and the Lech, ilaximilian retreating be- fore him. ... At Munich the inhabitants brought him their keys. As they knelt he said, ' Rise, worsliip God, not man.'. . . To compensate the soldiers for not plumlering the city, the King gave them each a crown on the day of their en- trance. . . . Catholic Germany was in despair. There was only one general in whom there was any hope, and that was the discarded Wallen- stein. ... He made himself be courted. He would not come to Vienna, only to Znaim in Moravia, where he made his terms like an inde- pendent prince. ... At last he undertook to collect an army, but refused to take the com- mand for more than three months. His name was enough to bring his Friedlanders flocking to his standard. Not only Catholics, but Protestants came, viewing Gustavus as a foreign invader. . . . Wallenstein received subsidies not only from the Emperor, but from the Pope and the King of Spain, towards levj'ing and equipping them, and by the end of the three months he had the full 40,000 all in full order for the march. Then he resigned the command. . . . He affected to be bent only on going back to his tower and his stars at Prague [the study of astrology being his favorite occupation], and to yield slowly to the proposals made him. He was to be Generalis- simo, neither Emperor nor Archduke was ever to enter his camp ; he was to name all his officers, and have absolute control. . . . Moreover, he might levy contributions as he chose, and dis- pose as he pleased of lands and property taken from the enemy ; Mecklenburg was to be secured to him, together with further rewards yet un- specified : and when Bohemia was freed from the enemy, the Emperor was to live there, no doubt under his control. . . . There was no help for it, and Wallenstein thus became the chief power in the Empire, in fact a dictator. The power was conferred on him in April. The first thing he did was to turn the Saxons out of Bohemia, which was an easy matter." At Egra, Wallen- stein was joined by the Elector of Bavaria, which raised the Catholic force to 60,000. "The whole army marched upon Nuremberg, and Gustavus, withonl)- 30,000 men, da.shed back to its defence. Wallenstein had intrenciied himself on an emi- nence called Flirth. " As Nuremberg was terribly distressed, his own army suffering, and being in- fected with the lawless habits of German warfare, Gustavus found it necessar}- to attempt (August 34) the storming of the Imperialists' camp. He was repulsed, after losing 3,000 of his Swedes and thrice as many Germans. He then returned to Bavaria, while Wallenstein, abandoning his hope of taking Nuremberg, moved into Saxony and began ravaging the country. The Swedish king followed him so quickly tliat he had no time to establish the fortified camp he had in- tended, but was forced to take up an intrenched position at Llitzen. There he was attacked on the 6th of November. 1633, and defeated in a desperate battle, which became one of the mem- orable conflicts in history because it brought to an end the great and splendid career of Gustavus Adolphus, the Swede. The king fell as he was leading a charge, and the fierce fight went on over his body until the enemy had been driven from the field. — C. M. Yonge, Cameos from Eng- lish History, Qth series, c. 19. Also in : G. B. Malleson, Battle-fiekls of Oer- many, ch. 8-3. — R. C. Trench, Gnstavus AdolpJms in Oermany. — .1. L. Stevens, Hist, of Gustavus Adolphus, ch. 1.0-18. A. D. 1631-1641.— The Thirty Years War: The war in Lorraine. — Possession of the duchy taken by the French. See LoRK.\rNE: A. D. 1634-1063. A. D. 1632-1634. — The Thirty Years War: Retirement of Wallenstein to Bohemia. — Ox- enstiern in the leadership of the Protestant cause. — Union of Heilbronn. — Inaction and suspicious conduct of Wallenstein. — The Ban pronounced against him. — His assassination. — " The account of the battle [of Liitzen] trans- mitted by Wallenstein to the Imperial Court, led Ferdinand to think that lie had gained the day. . . . But . . . the reputed conqueror was glad to shelter himself behind the mountains of the Bohemian frontier. After the battle, Wallenstein found it necessary to evacuate Saxony in all haste; and, leaving garrisons at Leipsic, Plauen, Zwickau, Chenmitz, Freiberg, Meissen, and Frauenstein, he reached Bohemia without further loss, and put his army into winter-quarters. After his arrival at Prague, he caused many of his officers to be executed for their conduct at Liitzen, among whom were several who belonged to families of distinction, nor would he allow them to plead the Emperor's pardon. A few he rewarded. The harshness of his proceedings in- creased the hatred already felt for him by many of his officers, and esiiecially the Italian portion of them. . . . Axel Oxenstiern, the Swedish Chancellor, succeeded, on the death of Gustavus Adolphus, to the supreme direction of the affairs of Sweden in Germany, and was invested by the Council at Stockholm with full powers both to direct the army and to negotiate with the German courts. Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Wei- mar retained the military command of the Swed- ish-German army, divisions of which were can- toned from the Baltic to the Danube. After driving the Imperialists from Saxony, Bernhard 1511 GERMANY, 1633-1634. Assassinatioti of Wallenstein. GERMANY, 1634-1639. had hastened into Franconia, the bishoprics of which, according to a promise of Gustavus, were to be erected in his favour into a ducliy; but, after taking Bamberg, his assistance was invoked by General Horn, on tlie Upper Danube. One of the first cares of Oxenstiern was to consolidate the German alliance; and, in March 1633, he summoned a meeting at Heilbronn of the States of the four Circles of the Upper and Lower Rhine, Franconia, and Suabia, as well as deputies from Nuremberg, Strasburg, Frankfort, Ulm, Augs- burg, and other cities of the empire. The as- sembly was also attended by ambassadors from France, England, and Holland : and on April 9th was effected the Union of Heilbronn. Branden- burg aijd Saxony stood aloof; nor was France, though she renewed the alliance with Sweden, included in the Union. The French minister at Heilbronn assisted, however, in the formation of the Union, although he endeavoured to limit the power of Oxenstiern, to whom the conduct of the war was intrusted. At the same time, the Swedes also concluded a treaty with the Palati- nate, now governed, or rather claimed to be gov- erned, by Louis Philip, brother of the Elector Frederick V., as guardian and regent for the iatter's youthful sou Charles Louis. The unfor- tunate Frederick had expired at Mentz in his 37th year, not many days after the death of Gus- tavus Adolphus. . . . Swedish garrisons were to be maintained in Frankenthal, Bacharach, Kaub, and other places; Mannheim was to be at the dis- posal of the Swedes so long as the war should last. . . . After the junction of Duke Bernhard with Horn, the Swedish army, — for so we shall continue to call it, though composed in great part of Germans, — endeavoured to penetrate into Bavaria; but the Imperial General Altringer, aided by John von Werth, a commander of dis- tinction, succeeded in covering Munich, and en- abled Maximilian to return to his capital. The Swedish generals were also embarrassed by a mutinj' of their mercenaries, as well as by their own misunderstandings and quarrels; and all that Duke Bernhard was able to accomplish in the campaign of 1633, besides some forays into Bavaria, was the capture of Ratisbon in Novem- ber. " — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern Europe, bk. 4, cJt. 6 (f, 2). — Wallenstein, meantime, had been doing little. "After a long period of inaction in Bohemia, he marched during the summer of 1633, with imperial pomp and splendor, into Sile- sia. There he found a mixed army of Swedes, Saxons, and Brandenburgers, with Matthias Thurn, who began the war, among them. Wal- lenstein finally shut in this array [at Steinau] so that he might have captured it ; but he let it go, and went back to Bohemia, where he began to negotiate with Saxony for peace. Meanwhile the alliance formed at Heilbronn had brought Maximilian of Bavaria into great distress. Re- gensburg [Ratisbon], hitherto occupied by him, and regarded as an outwork of Bavaria and Aus- tria, had been taken by Bernard of Weimar. But AVallensteiu, whom "the emperor sent to the rescue, only went into the Upper Palatinate, and then returned to Bohemia. He seemed to look upon that country as a strong and commanding position from which he could dictate peace. He carried on secret negotiations with France, Sweden, and all the emperor's enemies. He had, indeed, the power to do this under his commis- sion ; but his attitude toward his master became constantly more equivocal. The emperor was anxious to be rid of him without making him an enemy, and wished to give to his own son, the young King of Hungary, the command in cliief. But the danger of losing his place drove Wal- lenstein to bolder schemes. At his camp at Pil- sen, all his principal officers were induced by him to unite in a written request that ho should in no- case desert them — a step which seemed much like a conspiracy. But some of the generals, as Gallas, Aldringer, and Piccolomini, soon aban- doned Wallenstein, and gave warning to the em- peror. He secretly signed a jiatent deposing Wallenstein, and placed it in the hands of Picco- lomini and Gallas, January 24, 1634, but acted with the profoundest dissimulation imtil he had made sure of most of the commanders who- served under him. Then, suddenly, on February 18, AValleustein, liis brother-in-law Tertzski, How, Neumann, and Kinsky were put under the ban, and the general's possessions were confis- cated. Now, .at length, Wallenstein openly re- volted, and began to treat with the Swedes for desertion to them; but they did not fully trust him. Attended only liy tive Sclavonic regiments, who remained faithful to him, he went to Eger, where he was to meet troojis of Beruai-d of Wei- mar; but before he covdd join them, he and the friends named above were assassinated, February 25, by traitors who had remained in his intimate companionship, and whom he trusted, under the command of Colonel Butler, an Irishman, em- ployed by Piccolomini." — C. T. Lewis, Hist, of Oermany, ch. 18, seet. 10. Also in : F. Schiller, Hist, of the Thirty Years' War, bk. 4.— J. Mitchell, Life of Wallenstein, eh. 8-10. — Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Tears War, pt. 1. A. D. 1634-1639. — The Thirty Years War: Successes of the Imperialists. — Their victory at Nordlingen. — Richelieu and France become active in the war. — Duke Bernhard's conquest of Alsace. — Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France. — " Want of union among the Protestants prevented them from deriving all the benefit which they had at first anticipated from Wallenstein's death. The King of Hun- gary assumed the command of the army, and by the aid of money, which was plentifvdly distrib- uted, the soldiers were, without difficulty, kept in obedience ; not the slightest attempt was any where made to resist the Emperor's orders. On the other hand, Bernhard of Weimar and Field- Marshal Horn were masters of Bavaria. In July 1634, they gained a complete victory at Land- shut, over General Altringer, who was slain in the action. . . . The Swedes, who had so long been victorious, were, in their turn, destined to taste the bitterness of defeat. 15,000 Spaniards, under the Cardinal Infant, son of Philip III., entered Germany [see Netherlands: A.D. 1631- 1633, and 1635-1638], and in conjunction with the imperial army, under the King of Hungary, laid siege to N5rdlingen. Field-JIarshal Horn, and Bernhard of Weimar, hurried to the relief of the place. Owing to the superiority of the enemy, who was besides strongly intrenched, the Swedish commanders had no intention to hazard a battle, before the arrival of the Rhin-graff Count Otho, with another division of the army, which was already close at hand; but the im- petuosity of the Duke of Weimar lost every thing. Horn had succeeded in carrying a hill. 1512 GERMANY, 1634-1639. RicheliexCs Intrigues, GERMANY, 1634-1639. called the Amsberg, a strong point, which placed him in communication with the town, and almost secured the victory. Beruhard. thiuldug tliat so favourable au opening should not be neglected, hurried on to the attack of another post. It was taken and retakeu; both armies were gradually, and without method, drawn into the combat, which, after eiglit hours' duration, ended in the complete defeat of the Swedes. Horn was made prisoner; and Berahard escaped on a borrowed horse. . . . The defeat of Nordlingen almost ruined tlie Swedish cause in Germany ; the spell of invincibility was gone, and the effects of the panic far surpassed those which the sword had produced. Strong fortresses were abandoned before the enemy came in sight ; provinces were evacuated, and armies, that had been deemed almost inconquerable. deserted their chiefs, and broke into bands of lawless robbers, who pillaged their way in every direction. Bavaria, Suabia and Franconia were lost ; and it was only behind the Rhine that the scattered fugitives could again be brought into something like order. . . . The Emperor refused to grant the Swedes any other terms of peace than permission to retire from the empire. The Elector of Saxony, forgetful of ■what was due to his religion, and forgetful of all that Sweden had done for his country, concluded, at Prague, a separate peace with the Emperor; and soon afterwards joined the Imperialists against his former allies. The fortunes of the Protestants would have sunk beneath this addi- tional blow, had not France come to their aid. Richelieu had before only nourished the war by means of subsidies, and had, at one time, become nearly as jealous of the Swedes as of the Aus- trians; but no sooner was their power broken, than the crafty priest took an active share in the contest." — .1. Mitchell, Life of Wallenstein, ch. 10. — "Richelieu entered resolutely into the contest, and in 163.5 displayed enormous diplomatic ac- tivity. He wished not only to reduce Austria, but, at the same time, Spain. Spanish soldiers, Spanish treasure, and Spanish generals made in great part the strength of the imperial armies, and Spain besides never ceased to ferment internal troubles in France. Richelieu signed the treaty of Compiegne with the Swedes against Ferdinand II. By its conditions he granted them consider- able subsidies in order that they should continue the war in Germany. He made the treaty of St. Germain en Laye with Bernard of Saxe Weimar, to whom he promised an annual allowance of money as well as Alsace, provided that he should remain in arms to wrest Franche-Comte from Philip IV. He made the treaty of Paris with the Dutch, who were to help the King of France to conquer Flanders, which was to be divided between France and the United Provinces. He made the treaty of Rivoli with the dukes of Savoy, of Parma, and of Mantua, who were to undertake in concert with France the invasion of the territories of Milan and to receive a portion of the spoils of Spain. At the same time he de- clared war against the Spanish Government, •which had arrested and imprisoned the Elector of Treves, the ally of France, and refused to surrender him when demanded. Hostilities im- mediately began on five different theatres of war — in the Low Countries, on the Rhine, in East- ern Germany, in Italy, and in Spain. The army of the Rhine, commanded by Cardinal de la Valette, was to operate in conjunction with the corps of Bernard of Sase "Weimar against the Imperialists, commanded by Count Gallas. To this army Turenne was attached. It consisted of 20,000 infantry, 5,000 cav.alry, and 14 guns. This was the army upon which Richelieu mainly relied. . . . Valette was to annoy the enemy without exposing him.self, and was not to ap- proach the Rhine; but induced by Bernard, who had a dashing spirit and wished to reconquer all he had lost, encouraged by the terror of the Im- perialists who raised the siege of Mayence, lie determined to pass the river. He was not long in repenting of that stej). He established his troops round Mayence and revictualled this place, which was occupied by a Swedish garrison, throwing in all the supplies of which the town had need. The Imperialists, who had calculated on this imprudence, immediately took to cutting off his supplies, so that soon everything was wanting in the French camp. . . . The scourge of famine threatened the French : it was necessary to retreat, to recross the Rhine, to pass the Sarre, and seek a refuge at Metz. Few retreats have been so difficult and so sad. The army was in such a pitiable condition that round Mayence the men had to be fed with roots and green grapes, and the horses with branches of trees. . . . The sick and the weary were abandoned, the guns were buried, villages were burnt to stay the pursuit of the enemy, and to prevent the wretched soldiers who would fall out of the ranks from taking refuge in them." — H. M. Hozier, Turenne, ch. 3. — "Meanwhile, Saxony had concluded with the Emperor at Pirna, at the close of 1634, a con- vention which ripened into a treaty of alliance, to which almost all the princes of Northern Ger- many subscribed, at Prague, in the month of May following. The Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg were thus changed into enemies of Sweden. The Swedish General, Banner [or Baner], who, at the period of the battle of NOrd- lingen, had been encamped side by side with the Saxon arm}' on the White Hill near Prague, had, on the first indication of wavering on the part of its Elector, managed skilfully to withdraw his troops from the dangerous proximity. On the 22nd October 1635, he defeated the Saxon army, at DOmitz on the Elbe, then invaded Branden- burg, took Havelberg, and even threatened Ber- lin. Compelled by the approach of a Saxon and Imperialist array to quit his prey, he turned and beat the combined army at W'ittstock (24th September 1636). After that battle, he drew the reinforced Imperialists, commanded by Gallas, after him into Pomerania ; there he caused them great losses by cutting off their supplies, then forced them back into Saxony, and, following them up closely, attacked and beat them badly at Chemnitz (4th April, 1639)." In the south, Duke Bernhard had gained meantime some solid successes. After his retreat from Mayence, in 1635, he had concluded his secret treaty with Richelieu, placing himself wholly at the service of France, and I'eceiving the promise of 4,000,000 francs yearly, for the support of his army, and the ultimate sovereignty of Alsace for himself. "Having concerted measures with La Valette [1636], . . . he invaded Lorraine, drove the enemy thence, taking Saarburg and Pfalzburg, and then, entering Alsace, took Saverne. His career of conquest in Alsace was checked by the in- vasion of Burgundy by Gallas, with an army of 40,000 men. Duke Bernhard marched with all 1513 GERMANY, 1634-1639. Duke Bernhard. GERMANY, 1640-1645. haste to Dijon, and forced Gallas to fall back, with great loss, beyond the Saone (November 1636). Pursuing his advantages, early the fol- lowing year he forced the passage of the Saone at Gray, despite the vivid resistance of Prince Charles of Lorraine (June 1637), and pursued that commander as far as Besan9on. Reinforced during the autumn, he marched towards the Upper Rhine, and, undertaking a winter cam- paign, captured Lauilenburg, after a skirmish with John of Werth ; then Silckingen and Wald- shut. and laid siege to Rheinfelden. The Im- perialist army, led by John of Werth, succeeded, indeed, after a very hot encounter, in relieving that place ; but three days later Duke Bernhard attacked and completely defeated it (21st Feb- ruary 1638), taking prisoners not only John of Werth himself, but the generals, Savelli, Enke- fort, and Sperreuter. The consequences of this victory were the fall of Rheinfelden, Rotteln, Neuenberg, and Freiburg. Duke Bernhard then laid siege to Breisach (July 1638). . . . The Im- perial general, GOtz, advanced at the head of a force considerably outnumbering that of Duke Bernhard. Le.aving a portion of his army before the place, Duke Bernhard then drew to himself Turenne, who was l}'ing in the vicinity with 3,000 men, fell upon the Imperialists at Witten- weiher (30th July), completely defeated them, and captured their whole convoy. Another Im- perialist army, led by the Duke of Lorraine in person, shared a similar fate at Thann, in the Sundgau, on the 4th October following. Gotz, who was hastening with a strengthened army to support the Duke of Lorraine, attacked Duke Bernhard ten days later, but was repulsed witli great loss. Breisach capitulated on the 7th De- cember. Duke Bernhard took possession of it in his own name, and foiled all the efforts of Riche- lieu to secure it for France, by garrisoning it with German soldiers. To compensate the French Cardinal Minister for Breisach, Duke Bernhard undertook a winter campaign to drive the Im- perialists from Franche-Comte. Entering that province at the end of December, he speedily made himself master of its richest part. He then returned to Alsace with the resolution to cross the Rhine and carry the war once again into Bavaria," and then, in junction with Banner, to Vienna. " He had made all the necessary prep- arations for this enterprise, had actually sent his army across the Rhine, when he died very sud- denly, not without suspicion of poison, at Neu- berg am Rhein (8th July, 1639). The lands he had conquered he bequeathed to his brother. . . . But Richelieu paid no attention to the wishes of the dead general. Before any of the family could interfere, he had secured all the fortresses in Alsace, even Breisach, which was its key, for France." — G. B. Malleson, The Battle- fields of Oermany, ch. 5. — "During [1639] Picco- lomini, at the head of the Imperialist and Spanish troops, gave battle to the French at Diedenhofen. The battle took place on the 7th of June, and the French were beaten and suffered great losses." — A. Gindely, Hist, of the Thirty Years' Wai; ch. 8. Also in": Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War, pt. 3.— S. R. Gardiner, Tlie Thirty Years' War, ch. 9, sect. 5, A. D. 1635-1638.— The Thirty Years War : Campaigns in the Netherlands. — The Dutch and French against the Spaniards. See Neth- eblandb: a. D. 1635-1638. A. D. 1636-1637.— Diet at Ratisbon.— At- tempted negotiations of peace. — Death of the Emperor Ferdinand II. — "An electoral diet was assembled at Ratisbon, by the emperor in person, on the 15th of September, 1636, for the ostensible purpose of restoring peace, for which some vague negotiations had been opened under the mediation of the pope and the king of Den- mark, and congresses appointed at Hamburgh and Cologne ; but with the real view of procur- ing the election of his son Ferdinand as king of the Romans. . . . Ferdinand was elected with '■- 'y the fruitless protest of the Palatine family, and the dissenting voice of the elector of Treves. . . . The emperor did not long survive this happy event. He died on the 15th of February, 1637. . . . Ferdinand . . . seems to have been the first who formally established the right of primogeniture in all his hereditary territories. By his testament, dated May 10th, 1621, he ordered that all his Austrian dominions should devolve on his eldest male descendant, and fixed the majority at 18 years." — W. Coxe, Hist, of the House of Austria, ch. 56 (v. 2). A. D. 1637. — Election of the Emperor Fer- dinand III. A. D. 1640-1645.— The Thirty Years War : Campaigns of Saner and Torstenson. — The second Breitenfeld. — Jankowitz. — Mergent- heim. — Allerheim. — War in Denmark. — Swedish army in Austria. — Saxony forced to neutrality. — "The war still went on for eight years, but the only influence that it exerted upon the subsequent Peace was that it overcame the last doubts of the Imperial court as to the indis- pensable principles of the Peace. . . . The first event of importance on the theatre of war after Bernhard's death was Bauer's attempt to join the army of Weimar in central Germany. Not in a condition to pass the winter in Bohemia, and threatened in Saxony and Silesia, he . . . com- menced [March, 1640] a retreat amidst fearful devastations, crossed the Elbe at Leitmeritz, and arrived April 3rd at Zwickau. He succeeded in joining with the mercenaries of Weimar and the troops of Lllneburg and Hesse at Saalfeld ; " but no joint action was found possible. " Until De- cember, the war on both sides consisted of marches hither and thither, accompanied with horrible devastation; but nothing decisive oc- curred. In September the Diet met at Ratisbon. While wearisome attempts were being made to bend the obstinacy of Austria, Baner resolved to compel her to yield by a bold stroke, to invade the Upper Palatinate, to surprise Ratisbon, and to put an end to the Diet and Emperor together. . . . NotwithoutdiflicultyGuebriant [command- ing the French in Alsace] was induced to follow, and to join Baner at Erfurt. . . . But the sur- prise of Ratisbon was a failure. . . . The armies now separated again. Baner exhausted his pow- ers of persuasion in vain to induce Guebriant to go with him. The French went westward. Hard pressed himself, Baner proceeded by forced marches towards Bohemia, and by the end of March reached Zwickau, where he met Guebri- ant again, and they had a sharp conflict with the Imperialists on the Saal. There Baner died, on the 31st of May, 1641, leaving his army in a most critical condition. The warfare of the Swedish- French arms was come to a standstill. Both armies were near dissolution, when, in November, Torstenson, the last of the Gustavus Adolphus 1514 GERMANY, 1640-1645. Campaigns of the Swedes. GERMANY, 1643-1644. school of generals, and the one who most nearly equalled the master, appeared with the Swedish army, and by a few vigorous strokes, which fol- lowed each other with unexampled rapidity, re- stored the supremacy of its arms. . . . After three months of rest, which he mainly devoted to the reorganization and payment of his array, by the middle of January [1642] he had advanced towards the Elbe and the Altmark ; and as the Imperial forces were weakened by sending troops to the Rhine, he formed the great project of pro- ceeding through Silesia to the Austrian hereditary dominions. On April 3rd he crossed the Elbe at Werben, between the Imperial troops, increased his army to 20,000 men, stormed Glogau on May 4th, stood before Schweidnitz on the 30th, and de- feated Francis Albert of Lauenburg ; Schweidnitz, Neisse, and Oppeln fell into his hands. Mean- while Guebriant, after subduing the defiant and mutinous spirit of his troops by means of money and promises, had, on January 17th, defeated the Imperialists near Kempen, not far from Crefeld [at Hulst], for which he was honoured with the dignity of marshal. But this was a short-lived gleam of light, and was soon followed by dark days, occasioned by want of money and discon- tent in the camp. ... He had turned eastward from the Rhine to seek quarters for his murmur- ing troops in nether Germany, when Torstenson effected a decision in Saxony. After relieving Glogau, and having in vain tried to enter Bohe- mia, he had joined the detachments of Konigs- mark and Wrangel, and on October 30th he ap- peared before Leipzig. On November 2nd there was a battle near Breitenfeld, which ended in a disastrous defeat of the Imperialists and Leipzig surrendered to Torstenson three weeks after- wards. In spite of all the advantages which Torstenson gained for himself, it never came to a united action with the French; and tlie first victory won by the French in the Netherlands, in May, i643, did not alter this state of things. Tor- stenson . . . was suddenly called to a remote scene of war in the north. King Christian IV. of Denmark had been persuaded, by means of the old Danish jealousy of Sweden, to take up arms for the Emperor. He declared war just as Tor- stenson was proceeding to Austria. Vienna was now saved ; but so much the worse for Denmark. In forced marches, which were justly admired, Torstenson set out from Silesia towards Den- mark at the end of October, conducted a masterly campaign against tlie Danes, beat them wherever he met with them, conquered Holstein and Schles- wig, pushed on to Jutland, then, while Wrangel and Horn carried on the war (till the peace of BrOmsebro, August, 1645), he returned and again took up the war against the Imperialists, every- where an unvanquished general. The Imperial- ists under the incompetent Gallas intended to give Denmark breathing-time by creating a diver- sion ; but it did not save Denmark, and brought another defeat upon themselves. Gallas did not bring back more than 2,000 men from Magdeburg to Bohemia, and they were in a very disorganized state. He was pursued by Torstenson, while Ragoczy threatened Hungary. The Emperor hastily collected what forces he could command, and resolved to give battle. Torstenson had ad- vanced as far as Glattau in February, and on March 6th, 1645, a battle was fought near Janko- witz, three miles from Tabor. It was the most brilliant victory ever gained by the Swedes. The Imperial army was cut to pieces ; several of its leaders imprisoned or killed. In a few weeks Torstenson conquered Moravia and Austria as far as the Danube. Not far from the capital it- self he took possession of the Wolfsbrilcke. As in 1618, Vienna was in great danger." But the ill-success of the French " alwaj's counterbalanced the Swedes' advantages. Either they were beaten just as the Swedes were victorious, or could not turn a victory to account. So it was during this year [1645]. The west frontier of the empire was guarded on the imperial side by Jlercy, to- gether with John of Werth, after he was liberated from prison. On 26th March, Turenne crossed the Rhine, and advanced towards Frauconia. There he encamped near Mergentheim and Rosen- berg. On 5th May, a battle near Mergentheim ended with the entire defeat of the French, and Turenne escaped with the greatest difficulty by way of Hammelburg, towards Fulda. The vic- tors pushed on to the Rhine. To avenge this defeat, Enghien was sent from Paris, and, at the beginning of July, arrived at Spires, with 12,000 men. His forces, together with KOnlgsmark's, the remnant of Turenne's and the Hessians, amounted to 30,000 men. At first Mercy dexter- ously avoided a battle under unfavourable cir- cumstances, but on August 3d the contest was inevitable. A bloody battle was fought between Nordlingen and DonauwOrth, near AUerheim [called the battle of N5rdlingen, by the French], which was long doubtful, but, after tremendous losses, resulted in the victory of the French. Mercy's fall, Werth's imprudent advance, and a linal brave assault of the Hessians, decided the day. But the victors were so weakened that they could not fully take advantage of it. Conde was ill ; and in the autumn Turenne was compelled, not without perceptible damage to the cause, to retreat with his army to the Neckar and the Rhine. Neither had Torstenson been able to maintain his position in Austria. He had been obliged to raise the siege of Brunn, and learnt at the same time that Ragoczy had just made peace with the Emperor. Obliged to retire to Bohemia, he found his forces considerably diminished. Meanwhile, KOnigsmark had won an important advantage. While Torstenson was in Austria he gained a firm footing in Sa.xony. Then came the news of AUerheim, and of the peace of BrOmse- bro. Except Dresden and Konigstein, all the im- portant points were in the hands of the Swedes; so, on the 6th of September [1645], the Elector John George concluded a treaty of neutrality for six months. Besides money and supplies, the Swedes received Leipzig, Torgau, and the right of passage through the country. Meanwhile, Torstenson had retreated into the north-east of Bohemia, and severe physical sufferings com- pelled him to give up the command. He was succeeded by Charles Gustavus Wrangel." — L. Hausser, The Period of the Beformation, 1517 to 1648, ch. 39. Also in; W. Coxe, Hist, of ths Home of Aus- tria, ch. 58 (p. 2). A. D. 1642-1643.— The Thirty Years War: Condi's victory at Rocroi and campaign on the Moselle. See France; A. D. 1642-1643, and 1643. A. D. 1643-1644.— The Thirty Years War: Campaigns of Turenne and Cond^ against Merci, on the Upper Rhine. — Diitlingen. — Freiburg. — Philipsburg. — "After the death of 1515 GERMANY, 1643-1644. Tiirenne and Conde. GERMANY, 1646-1648. Bernard of Saxe "Weimar, Marshal Guebriant had been phiced in command of the troops of Wei- mar. He had besieged and taken Rottweil in Suabia, but had there been liillcd. Rantzau, who succeeded him in command of the Weimar army, marched (34-25 Nov., 1643) upon Diitliugen [or Tuttlingen], on the Upper Rhine, was there beaten by Mercy and made prisoner, with tlie loss of many officers and 7.000 soldiers. This was a great triumpli for the Bavarians ; a terrible disaster for France. The whole of the German infantr}' in the French service was dispersed or taken, the cavalry retreated as they best could upon the Rhine. . . . Circumstances required active measures. Plenipotentiaries had just as- sembled at Jliinster to begin the negotiations which ended with the peace of Westphalia. It was desired that the French Government should support the French diplomatist by quick suc- cesses Tureune was sent to the Rhine with reinforcements. . . . He re-established discipline, and breathed into [the army] a new spirit. . . . At the same time, by negotiations, the prisoners who had been taken at Dtltlingen were restored to France, the gaps in the ranks were filled up, and in the spring of 1644 Turenne found himself at the head of 9,000 men, of whom 5,000 were cavalry, and was in a position to take the field." He " pushed through the Black Forest, and near the source of the Danube gained a success over a Bavarian detachment. For some reason which is not clear he threw a garrison into Freiburg, and retired across the Rhine. Had he remained near the town he would have prevented Mercy from investing it. So soon as Turenne was over the river, Mercy besieged Freiburg, and although Turenne advanced to relieve the place, a stupid error of some of his infantry made him fail, and Freiburg capitulated to Mercy. " — H. M. Hozier, Turenne, ch. 3 and 5. — " Affairs being in so bad a state about the Black Forest, the Great Conde, at that time Due d'Enghien, was brought up, with 10,000 men; thus raising the French to a number above the enemy's. He came crowned with the immortal laurels of Rocroi ; and in vir- tue of his birth, as a prince of the blood-royal, took precedence of the highest officers in the ser- vice. Merci, a capable and daring general, aware of his inferiorit}', now posted himself a short distance from Freyburg, in a position almost in- accessible. He garnished it with felled trees and intrenchments, mountains, woods, and marshes, which of themselves defied attack." Turenne advocated a flank movement, instead of a direct assault upon Jlerci's position ; but Conde, reck- less of his soldiers' lives, persisted in leading them against the enemy's works. "A terrible action ensued (August 3, 1644). Turenne made a long detour through a defile ; Conde, awaiting his arrival on the ground, postponed the assault till three hours before sunset, and then ascended the steep. Merci had the worse, and retreated to a fresh position on the Black Jlountain, where he successfully repulsed for one day Conde's col- umns (August 5). In this action Gaspard Merci was killed. Conde now adopted the flank move- ment, which, originally recommended by Tu- renne, would have saved much bloodshed; and Merci, hard pressed, escaped by a rapid retreat, leaving behind him his artillery and baggage (Aug. 9). These are the ' three days of Frey- burg.' To retake the captured Freyburg after their victory . . . was the natural suggestion first heard." But Turenne persuaded Conde that the reduction of Philipsburg was more impor- tant. ' ' Philipsburg was taken after a short siege ; and its fall was accompanied b_v the submission of the adjacent towns of Germersheim, Speier, Worms, Mentz, Oppenheim and Landau. Conde at this conjuncture left the Upper Rhine, and took away his regiments with him." — T. O. Cockayne, Life of Turenne, pp. 30-22. Also in: G. B. Malleson, The Battle-fields of Germany, ch. 6. A. 0.1646-1648.— The Thirty 'V^ears War: Its final campaiens. — The sufferings of Ba- varia. — Truce and peace negotiations initiated by the Elector Maximilian. — The ending of the war at Prague.— -" The retreat of the French [after the battle of Allerheim] enabled the en- emy to turn his whole force upon the Swedes in Bohemia. Gustavus Wrangel, no unworthy successor of Banner and Torstensohn, had, in 1646, been appointed Commander-in-chief of the Swedish army. . . . The Archduke, after rein- forcing his army . . . moved against Wrangel, in the hope of being able to overwhelm him by his superior force before Koenigsmark could join him, or the French effect a diversion in his favour. Wrangel, however, did not await him." He moved through Upper Saxony and Hesse, to Weimar, where he was joined by the flying corps of Koenigsmark. Finally, after much delay, he was joined likewise by Turenne and the French. "The junction took place at Giessen, and they now felt themselves strong enough to meet the enemy. The latter had followed the Swedes into Hesse, in order to intercept their commis- sariat, and to prevent their union with Turenne. In both designs they had been unsuccessful ; and the Imperialists now saw themselves cut off from the Maine, and exposed to great scarcity and want from the loss of their magazines. Wrangel took advantage of their weakness to execute a plan by which he hoped to give a new turn to the war. . . . He determined to follow the course of the Danube, and to break into the Austrian territories through the midst of Bavaria. . . . He moved hastily, . . . defeated a Bavarian corps near Donauwerth, and passed that river, as well as the Lech, unopposed. But by wasting his time in the unsuccessful siege of Augsburg, he gave opportunity to the Imperialists, not only to relieve that city, but also to repulse him as far as Lauingen. No sooner, however, had they turned towards Suabia, with a view to remove the war from Bavaria, than, seizing the oppor- tunity, he repassed the Lech, and guarded the passage of it against the Imperialists themselves. Bavaria now lay open and defenceless before him ; the French and Swedes quickly overran it ; and the soldiery indemnified themselves for all dangers by frightful outrages, robberies, and ex- tortions. The arrival of the Imperial troops, who at last succeeded in passing the Lech at Thier- haupten, only increased the misery of this coun- try, which friend and foe indiscriminately plun- dered. And now, for the first time during the whole course of this war, the courage of Maxi- milian, which for eight-and-twenty years had stood unshaken amidst fearful dangers, began to waver. Ferdinand II., his school-companion at Ingolstadt, and the friend of his youth, was no more; and, with the death of his friend and benefactor, the strong tie was dissolved which had linked the Elector to the House of Austria. 1516 GERMANY, 1646-1648. End of the Thirty Years War. GERMANY. . . . Accordingly, the motives whicli tlie artifices of France now put in operation, in order to detacli him from the Austrian alliance, and to induce him to lay down his arms, were drawn entirely from political considerations. . . . The Elector of Bavaria was unfortunately led to believe that the Spaniards alone were disinclined to peace, and that nothing but Spanish influence had in- duced the Emperor so long to resist a cessation of hostilities. Maximilian detested the Spaniards, and could never forgive their having opposed his application for the Palatine Electorate. . . . All doubts disappeared ; and, convinced of the necessity of this step, he thought he should suf- ficiently discharge his obligations to the Emperor if he invited him also to share in the benefit of the truce. The deputies of the three crowns, and of Bavaria, met at Ulm, to adjust the conditions. But it was soon evident, from the instructions of the Austrian ambassador, that it was not the in- tention of the Emperor to second the conclusion of a truce, but if possible to prevent it. . . . The good intentions of the Elector of Bavaria, to include the Emperor iu the benefit of the truce, having been thus rendered unavailing, he felt himself justified in providing for his own safety. . . . He agreed to the Swedes extending their quarters in Suabia and Franconia, and to his own being restricted to Bavaria and the Palati- nate. The conquests which he had made in Suabia were ceded to the allies, who, on their part, restored to him what they had taken from Bavaria. Cologne and Hesse Cassel were also included in the truce. After the conclusion of this treaty, upon the 14th March, 1647, the French and Swedes left Bavaria. . . . Turenne, according to agreement, marched into Wurtem- burg, where he forced the Landgrave of Darm- stadt and the Elector of Mentz to imitate the example of Bavaria, and to embrace the neutral- ity. And now, at last, France seemed to have attained the great object of its policy, that of depriving the Emperor of the support of the League, and of his Protestant allies. . . . But . . . after a brief crisis, the fallen power of Aus- tria rose again to a formidable strength. The jealousy which France entertained of Sweden, prevented it from permitting the total ruin of the Emperor, or allowing the Swedes to obtain such a preponderance in Germany, which might have been destructive to France herself. Accord- ingly, the French minister declined to take ad- vantage of the distresses of Austria; and the army of Turenne, separating from that of Wrang- el, retired to the frontiers of the Netherlands. Wrangel, indeed, after moving from Suabia into Franconia, taking Schweinfurt, . . . attempted to make his way into Bohemia, and laid siege to Egra, the key of that kingdom. To relieve this fortress, the Emperor put his last army in mo- tion, and placed himself at its head. But . . . on his arrival Egra was already taken. " Mean- time the Emperor had engaged in intrigues with the Bavarian oflicers and had nearlj' seduced the whole army of the Elector. The latter discovered this conspiracy in tinae to thwart it ; but he now suddenly, on his own behalf, struck hands with the Emperor again, and threw over his late agree- ments with the Swedes and French. "He had not derived from the truce the advantages he expected. Far from tending to accelerate a general peace, it had a pernicious influence upon the negociations atMunster and Osnaburg, and had made the allies bolder in their demands." Maximilian, therefore, renounced the truce and began hostilities anew. "This resolution, and the assistance which he immediately despatched to the Emperor in Bo- hemia, threatened materially to injure the Swedes, and "Wrangel was compelled in haste to evacuate that kingdom. He retired through Thuringia into Westphalia and Lunenburg, in the hope of forming a junction with the French army under Turenne, while the Imperial and Bavarian army followed him to the Weser, under Melander and Gronsfeld. His ruin was inevitable if the enemj' should overtake him before his junction with Turenne ; but the same consideration which had just saved the Emperor now proved the salvation of the Swedes. . . . The Elector of Bavaria could not allow the Emperor to obtain so decisive a preponderance as, by the sudden alteration of afliairs, might delay the chances of a general peace. . . . Now that the power of the Emperor threatened once more to attain a dangerous su- periority, Maximilian at once ceased to pursue the Swedes. . . . Jlelander, prevented by the Ba- varians from further pursuing Wrangel, crossed by Jena and Erfurt into Hesse. ... In this ex- hausted country, his army was oppressed by want, while Wrangel was recruiting his strength, and remounting his cavalry in Lunenburg. Too weak to maintain his wretched quarters against the Swedish general, when he opened the cam- paign in the winter of 1648, and marched against Hesse, he was obliged to retire with disgrace, and take refuge on the banks of the Danube. . . . Turenne received permission to join the Swedes ; and the last campaign of this eventful war was now opened by the united armies. Driving Melander before them along the Danube, they threw supplies into Egra, which was be- sieged by the Imperialists, and defeated the Im- perial and Bavarian armies on the Danube, which ventured to oppose them at Susmarshausen, where Melander was mortally wounded. " They then forced a passage of the Lech, at the point where Gustavus Adolphus formerly overcame Tilly, and ravaged Bavaria once more; while nothing but a prolonged rain-storm, which flooded the Inn, saved Austria from a similar devasta- tion. Koenigsmark, with his flying corps, en- tered Bohemia, penetrated to Prague and sur- prised and captured the lesser side of the city (the Kleinsite), thus acquiring the reputation of "closing the Thirty Years' W\ir by the last bril- liant achievement. This decisive stroke, which vanquished the Emperor's irresolution, cost the Swedes only the loss of a single man. But the old town, the larger half of Prague, which is divided into two parts by the Moldau, by its vigorous resistance wearied out the efforts of the Palatine, Charles Gustavus, the successor of Christina on the throne, who had arrived from Sweden with fresh troops. . . . The approach of winter at last drove the besiegers into their quar- ters, and in the meantime the intelligence arrived that a peace had been signed at Munster, on the 24th October," — the "solemn and ever memor- able and sacred treaty which is known by the name of the Peace of Westphalia." — F. Schiller, Hist, of the Thirty Years' War, bk. 5. Also in : G. B. Malleson, The Battle-fields of Germany, ch. 7. The Thirty 'Y'ears War: Its horrors.— Its destructiveness. — The state of the country at its close. — "The materials of wlxich the armies 1517 GERMANY. Horrors of the Thirty Years War. GERMANY, 1648. ■were composed passed inevitably from bad to worse. This, which had been a civil war at the first, did not continue such for long ; or rather it united presently all the dreadfulness of a civil war and a foreign. It was not long before the hosts which trampled the German soil had in large part ceased to be German ; every region of Europe sending of its children, and, as it would seem, of those whom it must have been gladdest to be rid of, to swell the ranks of the destroyers. . . . From all quarters they came trooping, not singly, but in whole battalions. . . . All armies draw after them a train of camp-followers ; they are a plague which in the very nature of things is inevitable. But never perhaps did this evil rise to so enormous a height as now. Toward the close of this War an Imperial army of 40,000 men was found to be attended by the ugly ac- companiment of 140,000 of these. The conflict had in fact by this time lasted so long that the soldiery had become as a distinct nation, camping in the midst of another. ... It is a thought to make one shudder, the passage of one of these armies with its foul retinue through some fair and smiling and well-ordered region — what it found and what it must have left it, and what its doings there will have been. . . . When all in their immediate neighbourhood was wasted, armed bands variously disguised, as merchants, as gipsies, as travellers, or sometimes as women, would penetrate far into the land. . . . Nor was the condition of the larger towns much better. ... It did not need actual siege or capture to make them acquainted with the miseries of the time. With no draught-cattle to bring firewood in, there was no help for it but that abandoned houses, by degrees whole streets, and sometimes the greater part of a town, should be pulled down to prevent those of its inhabitants who re- mained from perishing by cold, the city thus liv- ing upon and gradually consuming itself. . . . Under conditions like these, it is not wonderful that the fields were left nearly or altogether uu- tilled ; for who would sow what he could never hope to reap ? . . . What wonder that famine, thus invited, should before long have arrived ? . . . Persons were found dead in the fields with grass in their mouths : while the tanners' and knackers' yards were beset for the putrid car- casses of beasts ; the multitudes, fierce with hunger, hardly enduring to wait till the skin had been stript away. The bodies of malefactors, broken on the wheel, were secretly removed to serve for food ; or men climbed up the gibbets, and tore down the bodies which were suspended there, and devoured them. This, indeed, was a supply which was not likely to fail. . . . Pris- oners in Alsace were killed that they might be eaten. Children were enticed from home. . . . Putting all together, it is not too much to .say that the crowning hoiTors of Samaria, of Jeru- salem, of Saguntum, found their parallels, and often worse than their parallels, in Christian Ger- many only two centuries ago. I had thought at one time that there were isolated examples of these horrors, one here, one there, just enough to warrant the assertion that such things were done ; but my conviction now is that they were very frequent indeed, and in almost every part of the land. . . . Districts which had for centu- ries been in the occupation of civilized men were repossessed by forests. ... Of the popula- tion it was found that three-fourths, in some parts a far larger proportion, had perished ; or, not having perished, were not less effectually lost to their native land, having fled to Switzer- land, to Holland, and to other countries, never to return from them again. Thus in one group of twenty villages which had not exceptionally suffered, 8.5 per cent. , or more than four-fifths of the inhabitants, had disappeared. ... Of the houses, three-fourths were destroyed. . . . Care- ful German writers assure us that there are dis- tricts which at this present day [1873] have just attained the population, the agricultural wealth, the productive powers which they had when the War commenced. " — R. C. Trench, Onstavua Adolphtis in Oermany, and ritheV Lect's on the Tliirty Years' Wa7\ led. 'Hand 5. — "There is no other example of a destruction of civilization such as the Thirty Years War in Germany produced. There is no other case where a whole people in all parts of the land was uniformly exposed to such severe losses, so that in numbers it was reduced to one half ; where, from riches, luxury, and abundance such as had undoubtedly pre- vailed at the beginning of the century men had come to poverty and to the want of even the necessaries of life. . . . Beggary had long ceased to be a cause for shame ; the war, which had brought down to it in a short time even those who had been formerly the richest, catised even the most dishonorable trade to be held in honor. Whoever by daily labor could earn his daily bread might think himself fortunate. In the place of the horses which war had carried away, human beings took to dragging carts in the street. . . . With the ruin of the trade and of the art industry of Germany, which in the 16th century would for so many objects have probably needed to fear no rivalry and which was only surpassed by that of Italy, went hand in hand the rise and increase of French industry. . . . Thus did the industrial triumph of France supplement its political supremacy ; thus did Germany's mis- fortune become the cause of enriching her west- ern neighbor." — H. von Zwiedineck-Sildenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 {trans, from the German), V. t, pp. 45-49. — See, also, Bohemia: A. D. 1621-1648. A. D. 1648.— The Peace of Westphalia.— Cession of Alsace to France. — Separation of Switzerland from the Empire. — Loosening of the constitutional bonds of the Empire. ' ' The opening of the peace negotiations between the Emperor and his enemies was . . . fixed for the 2.5th of March, 1642, and the cities of Mlinster and Osnabriick as the places of the sitting; but neither in this year nor in the next did it fake place. It was not until the year 1644 that in the former of these cities" were assembled the fol- lowing: The Papal Nuncio and the envoy of the Republic of Venice, acting as mediators, two imperial ambassadors, two representatives of France, three of Spain, and the Catholic Electors ; later came also the Catholic Princes. To Osna- briick, Sweden sent two ambassadors and France three, while the Electors, the German Princes and the imperial cities were represented. Ques- tions of etiquette, which demanded prior settle- ment, occupied months, and serious matters when reached were dealt with slowly and jealously, with many interruptions. It was not until tlie 24th of October, 1648, that the articles of peace forming the two treaties of Miinster and Osna- briick, and known together as the Peace of 1518 c L ^' J GERMANY, 1648. Peace of Westphalia. GERMANY, 1648. Westph.alia, were signed by all the negotiators at Milnster. The more important of the provisions of the two instruments were the following : "To France was secured the perpetual possession of the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, as also Moyenvic and Pignerol. with the right to keep a garrison in Philipsburg, and finally Breisach, Alsace, with its ten imperial cities, and the Sundgau. The Emperor bound himself to gain the assent of the Archduke Ferdinand, of Tyrol and Spain, to this last-named cession. France made good to the Archduke this loss by the pay- ment of 3,000,000 francs. Although it was not expressly provided that the connection with the Empire of the German provinces ceded to France should be dissolved, yet the separation became, as a matter of fact, a complete one. The Em- peror did not summon the Kings of France to the Diets of the Empire, and the latter made no demand for such summons. ... In relation to Italy, the French treaty provided that the peace concluded in 1631 [see Italy: A. D. 1637-1631] should remain in force, except the part relat- ing to Pignerol. ['Pinerolo was definitely put under the French overlordship.' — G. W. Kitchin, Hist, of Prance, v. 3, p. 98]. Switzerland was made independent of the German Empire; but the Circle of Burgundy [the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comte] was still to form a part of the Empire, and after the close of the war be- tween France and Spain, in which the Emperor and the Empire were to take no part, was to be included in the peace. No aid was to be ren- dered to the Duke of Lorraine againist France, although the Emperor and the Empire were left free to mediate for him a peace. Sweden re- ceived Hither Pomerania, including the Island of Rllgen, from Further Pomerania the Island of Wollin and several cities, with their surround- ings, among which were Stettin, as also the ex- pectancy of Further Pomerania in case of the extinction of the house of Brandenburg. Fur- thermore, it received the city of Wismar, in Mecklenburg, and the Bishoprics of Bremen [secularized and made a Grand Duchy] and Vcr- den, with reservation of the rights and immuni- ties of the city of Bremen. Sweden was to hold all the ceded territory as feudal tenures of the Empire, and be represented for them in the Im- perial Diet. . . . Brandenburg received for its loss of Pomerania the Bishoprics of Halberstadt, Minden, and Caniin, and the expectancy of that of Magdeburg as soon as this should become vacant by the death of its Administrator, the Saxon Prince, although the four bailiwicks sep- arated from it were to remain with Saxony as provided in the Peace of Prague. . . . The house of Brunswick-Liineberg was to renounce its right to the coadjutorship of Magdeburg, Bremen, Halberstadt, and Ratzeburg, and, in return for this renunciation, was to alternate with a Catho- lic prelate in the possession of the Bishopric of OsnabrUck. ... To Duke Maximilian of Ba- varia was conveyed the Electorate, together with the Upper Palatinate, to be hereditary in his family of the line of William, for which he, ou the other hand, was to surrender to the Emperor the account of the 13,000,000 florins which he bad made for the execution of the sentence against the Palsgrave Frederic. To the Pals- grave, Charles Lewis, son of the proscribed Elector [Frederic, who had died in 1633], was given back the Lower Palatinate, while a new Electorate, the eighth, was created for him. . . . There were numerous provisions relating to the restoration of the Dukes of Wurtemberg, the Margraves of Baden, and the Counts of Nassau and those of Hanau to several parts of the terri- tories which either belonged to them or were contested. A general amnesty was indeed pro- vided, and every one was to be restored to the possession of the lands which he had held before the war. This general article was, however, limited by various special provisions, as that in relation to the Palsgrave, and was not to be ap- plied to Austria at all. . . . Specially important are the sections which relate to the settlement of religious grievances. The treaty of Passau and the Augsburg religious peace were confirmed; the 1st of January, 1634, was fixed as the time which was to govern mutual reclamations be- tween the Catholics and Protestants ; both parties were secured the right to all ecclesiastical foun- dations, whether in mediate or immediate con- nection with the Empire, which they severally held in possession on the first day of January, 1634; if any such had been taken from them after this date, restoration was to be made, unless otherwise specially provided. The Ecclesiastical Reservation was acknowledged by the Protes- tants, and Protestant holders of ecclesiastical property were freely admitted to the Imperial Diets. The right of reformation was conceded to the Estates, and permission to emigrate to the subjects; while it was at the same time provided that, if in 1634 Protestant subjects of Catholic Princes, or the reverse, enjoyed freedom of re- ligion, this right should not in the future be di- minished. It was specially granted for Silesia that all the concessions which had been made before the war to the Dukes of Liegnitz, Miin- sterburg, and Oels, and to the city of Breslau, relating to the free exercise of the Augsburg Confession, should remain in force. . . . Finally, the Reformed— that is, the adherents of Calvin- ism — were placed upon the same ground with those of the Augsburg Confession; and it was provided that if a Lutheran Estate of the Em- pire should become a Calvinist, or the reverse, his subjects should not be forced to change with their Prince." — A. Gindely, Hist, of the Thirty Tears' War, v. 3, ch. 10. — "The emperor, in his own name, and in behalf of his family and the empire, ceded the full sovereignty of Upper and Lower Alsace, with the prefecture of Haguenau, or the ten towns [Haguenau, Schelestadt, Weis- semburgh, Colmar, Landau, Oberenheim, Ros- heim, Munster in the Val de St. Gregoire, Kaiser- berg, and Turingheim], and their dependencies. But by one of those contradictions which are common in treaties, when both parties wish to preserve their respective claims, another article was introduced, binding the king of France to leave the ecclesiastics and immediate nobility of those provinces in the immediacy which they had hitherto possessed with regard to the Roman em- pire, and not to pretend to any sovereignty over them, but to remain content with such rights as belonged to the house of Austria. Yet this was again contradicted by a declaration, that this ex- ception should not derogate from the supreme sovereignty before yielded to the king of France. " — W. Coxe, Hist, of tlie House of Austria, ch. 59 {v. 3). — "Respecting the rights of sovereignty due to the princes and the relations of the states of the empire with the emperor, the Peace of 1519 GERMANY, 16-18. Effects on the Empire. GERMANY, 1648-1705. Westphalia contained such regulations as must in the course of time produce a still greater re- laxation of those ties, already partially loosened, ■which held together the empire in one entirety. ... At the Peace of Westphalia the indepen- dence of the princes was made completely legal. They received the entire right of sovereignty over their territory, together with the power of making war, concluding peace, and forming alli- ances among themselves, as well as with foreign powers, provided such alliances were not to the injury of the empire. But what a feeble ob- stacle must this clause have presented ? For henceforward, if a prince of the empire, having formed an alliance with a foreign power, became hostile to the emperor, he could immediately avail himself of the pretext that it was for the benefit of the empire, the maintenance of his rights, and the liberty of Germany. And in order that the said pretext might, with some ap- pearance of right, be made available on every occasion, foreigners established themselves as the guardians of the empire ; and accordingly France and Sweden took upon themselves the responsi- bility of legislating as guarantees, not only for the Germanic constitution, but for everything else that was concluded in the Peace of West- phalia at Minister and Osnaburg. Added to this, in reference to the imperial cities, whose rights had hitherto never been definitively fixed, it was now declared that they should always be in- cluded under the head of the other states, and that they should command a decisive voice In the diets; thenceforth, therefore, their votes and those of the other states — the electoral and other princes — should be of equal validity. " — F. Kohl- rausch. Hist, of Germany, ch. 26. — Peace between Spain and the United Provinces was embodied in a separate treaty, but negotiated at Milnster, and co.ncluded and signed a few months earlier in the same year. The war between Spain and France went on. See Netherlands: A. D. 1646 -1648. A. D. 1648.— Effects of the Peace of West- phalia on the Empire. — It becomes a loose confederacy and purely German. — "Itmay. . . be said of this famous peace, as of the other so- called 'fundamental law of the Empire,' the Golden Bull, that it did no more than legalize a condition of things already in existence, but which by being legalized acquired new impor- tance. . . . While the political situation, to use a current phrase, had changed within the last two hundred years, the eyes with which men regarded it had changed still more. Never by their fiercest enemies in earlier times, not once by the Popes or Lombard republicans in the heat of their strife with the Franconian and Swabian Ciesars, had the Emperors been reproached as mere German kings, or their claim to be the law- ful heiis of Rome denied. The Protestant jurists of the 16th or ratlier of the 17th century were the first persons who ventured to scoff at the pretend- ed lordship of the world, and declare their Em- pire to be nothing more than a German monarchy, in dealing with which no superstitious reverence need prevent its subjects from making the best terms they could for tliemselves, and controlling a sovereign whose religious predilections made him the friend of their enemies. ... It was by these views . . . that the states, or rather France and Sweden acting on their behalf, were guided in the negotiations of Osnabrilcli and Mttnster. By ex- torting a full recognition of the sovereignty of all the princes, Catholics and Protestants alike, in their respective territories, they bound the Em- peror from any direct interference with the admin- istration, either in particular districts or through- out the Empire. All affairs of public importance, including the rights of making war or peace, of levying contributions, raising troops, building fortresses, passing or interpreting laws, were henceforth to be left entirely in the hands of the Diet. . . . Both Lutherans and Calvinists were declared free from all jurisdiction of the Pope or any Catholic prelate. Thus the last link which bound Germany to Rome was snapped, the last of the principles by virtue of which the Empire had existed was abandoned. For the Empire now contained and recognized as its members persons who formed a visible body at open war with the Holy Roman Church ; and its constitu- tion admitted schismatics to a full share in all those civil rights which, according to the doc- trines of the early Middle Age, could be enjoyed by no one who was out of the communion of the Catholic Church. The Peace of Westphalia was tlierefore an abrogation of the sovereignty of Rome, and of the theory of Church and State with which the name of Rome was associated. And in this light was it regarded by Pope Inno- cent X., who commanded his legate to protest against it, and subsequently declared it void by the bull ' Zelo domus Dei. ' . . . The Peace of Westphalia is an era in imperial history not less clearly marked than the coronation of Otto the Great, or the death of Frederick II. As from the days of Maximilian it had borne a mi.xed or transitional character, well expressed by tlie name Romano-Germanic, so henceforth it is in every- thing but title purely and solely a German Em- pire. Properly, indeed, it was no longer an empire at all, but a Confederation, and that of the loosest sort. For it had no common treasury, no eflicient common tribunals, no means of co- ercing a refractory member; its states were of different religions, were governed according to different forms, were administered judicially and financially without any regard to each other. . . . There were 300 petty principalities between the Alps and the Baltic, each with its own laws, its own courts, ... its little armies, its separate coinage, its tolls and custom-houses on the fron- tier, its crowd of meddlesome and pedantic officials. . . . This vicious system, which para- lyzed the trade, the literature, and the political thought of Germany, had been forming itself for some time, but did not become fully established until the Peace of Westphalia, by emancipating the princes from imperial control, had made them despots in their own territories. " — J. Bryce, The Holy Soman Empire, ch. 19. A. D. 1648-1705.— After the Peace of West- phalia. — French influence in the Empire. — Creation of the Ninth Elector. — After the Peace of Westphalia, the remainder of the reign of Ferdinand III. "passed in tranquillity. . . . He caused his son to be elected king of the Ro- mans, under the title of Ferdinand IV. ; but the young prince, already king of Bohemia and Hungary, preceded him to the tomb, and left the question of the succession to be decided by a diet. Ferdinand III. died in 1657. . . . The" in- terregnum, and, indeed, the century which fol- lowed the death of Ferdinand, showed the alarm- ing preponderance of the influence gained by 1520 GERMANY, 1648-1705. Austria, Germany, arul France* GERMANY, 1648-1715. France in the affairs of the empire, and the con- sequent criminality of the princes who had first invoked the assistance of that power. Her re- cent victories, her character as joint guarantee of the treat}' of Westphalia, and the contiguity of her possessions to the states of the empire, en- couraged her ministers to demand the imperial crown for the youthful Louis XIV. Still more extraordinary is the fact that four of the electors were gained, by that monarch's gold, to espouse his views. . . . Fortunately for Germany and for Europe, the electors of Treves, Brandenburg, and Saxony were too patriotic to sanction this infatuated proposal ; they threatened to elect a native prince of their own authority, — a menace which caused the rest to co-operate with them ; so that, after some fruitless negotiations, Leo- pold, son of the late emperor, king of Bohemia and of Hungary, was raised to the vacant dig- nity. His reign was one of great humiliation to his house and to the empire. Without talents for government, without generosity, feeble, big- oted, and pusillanimous, he was little qualified to augmenttheglory of the country. . . .Through- out his long reign [16.57-1705], he had the morti- fication to witness, on the part of Louis XIV. , a series of the most unprovoked, wanton, and un- principled usurpations ever recorded in history. . . . Internally, the reign of Leopold affords some interesting particulars. . . . Not the least is the establishment of a ninth electoral dignity in favour of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Bruns- wick Lunenburg, who then became (1692) the first elector of Hanover. This was the act of Leopold, in return for important aid in money and troops from two princes of that house ; but it could not be effected without the concurrence of the electoral body, who long resisted it. . . . The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the electors in person, but by their rep- resentatives, is one of the most striking peculiari- ties of Leopold's reign." — S. A. Dunham, Hist, of the Oermanic Empire, bk. 3, ch. 3 {v. 3). — See Diet, The Gei:m.\nic. A. D. 1648-1715. — Relations of Austria, Germany and France after the Thirty Years War. — " The whole shamefulness of this disin- tegration of Germany, showed itself in the de- fenceless state of the empire. . . . Right under the greedy hands of France lay the weakest, the most unguarded members of the empire. All along that priest-avenue the Rhine, from ]Miin- ster and Osnabriick up to Constance, stretclied a confused mass of tiny states, incapable of in any way seriously arming themselves, compelled to betray their country through the feeling of their own utter weakness. Almost all the Rhenish courts held pensions from Versailles. . . . Fully oue-third of Germany served in the wars of the empire as a dead burden. . . . The weakness of Germany was to blame for the new growth of power in Austria and France ; . . . the for- eigners laughed at the ' querelles allemandes ' and the ' mis^re allemande ' ; the Frenchman Bonhours mockingly asked the question if it was possible that a German could have intellect. ... As the born antagonist of the old order of things in Europe, the basis of which was Ge:- many's weakness, Prussia stood in a world of enemies whose mutual jealousies formed her only safeguard. She was without any natural ally, for the German nation had not yet come to \mder- stand this budding power. . . . Just as the House ^^ 1521 of Savoy was able to tread its way through the superiority of the Hapsburghs on the one hand and of the" Bourbons on the other, so did Prussia, although immeasurably harder pressed, have to find a path for herself between Austria and France, between Sweden and Poland, between the maritime powers and the inert mass of the German empire. She had to use every means of remorseless egoism, always ready to change front, always with two strings to her bow. The elec- torate of Brandenburg felt to the very marrow of its being how deeply foreign ideas had eaten into Germany. All the disorganized forces . . . which opposed the strong lead of the new mon- archy placed their faith in foreign help. Dutch garrisons were stationed on the Lower Rhine and favored the struggle of the Cleve estates against their German lords. The diets of Magdeburg and of the electoral Mark counted on Austria. . . . Frederick William breaks down the barriers of the Netherlanders in the German Northwest ; he drives their troops from Cleve and from East Friesland. . . . Then he calls out to the deaf nation his warning words, ' Remember that you are Germans,' and seeks to drive the Swedes from the soil of the empire. Twice did the ill- will of France and Austria succeed in robbing the Brandenburg prince of the reward of his victories, of the rule in Pomerania ; the fame of the day at Fehrbellin [see Brandenburg : A. D. 1640-1688] they could not take from him. . . . When the republic of the Netherlands threatened to fall before the attack of Louis XIV., Branden- burg caught the raised arm of the conqueror [see Netherlands : A. D. 1674-1678]. Frederick William carried on the only serious war that the empire ventured on for the recovery of Alsace [see Austria; A. D. 1672-1714]. . . . With the rise of Prussia began the long bloody work of freeing Germany from foreign rule. ... In this one state there awoke again, still half uncon- scious as if drunken with long sleep, the old hearty pride in the fatherland. . . . 'The House of Hapsburgh recognized earlier than the Ho- henzollerns did themselves how hostile this modern North German state was to the old con- stitution of the Holy Empire. In Silesia, in Pomerania, in the Jiilich-Cleve war of succession — everywhere Austria stood and looked with distrust on its dangerous rival. . . . Equally dangerous to Hapsburgh and to the German em- pire were the French and the Turks ; how natu- ral was it for Hapsburgh to seek support from Germany, to involve the empire in its wars, to use it as a bulwark towards the west or for di- versions against France in case the Turks threatened the walls of Vienna. . . . Only it cannot be denied that in this common action the Austrian policy, under a more centralized guid- ance and backed by a firmer tradition, looked out for its own advantage better than did the German empire — loose, heavy, aud without con- sistent leadership. When the might of Louis XIV. began to oppress Germany the policy of the Hapsburghs was to remain for a long time luke- warm and inactive. This policy led Austria in- deed even to make a league with France and. when she did at last decide to help the great elector of Brandenburg against the enemy of the empire, this happened so charily and equivocally as to give rise to the doubt whether the Austrian army^as not placed there to keep watch over the Brandenburg forces or even to positively GERMANY, 1648-1715. Austria and the Empire. GERMANY, 1648-1780. hinder their advance. An Austrian writer him- self assures us that Montecuculi was in secret commanded only to make a show of using his weapons against the French. For a long time Austria stood by inactive while the Reannexa- tions [see Fkakce : A. D. 1679-1681] were going on. . . . The whole war as conducted by Austria on the Rhine and in the West [see Austria : A. D. 1672-1714] was languid and sleepy ; the empire and individual warlike princes were left to pro- tect themselves. What an entirely different dis- play of power did Austria make when it was a question of fighting for its own dynastic inter- ests!" — H. von Treitschke, Deutxr/ie Oeschichte im 19ay forty millions for the expenses of the war, while she was exhausted by contributions and requisitions. Vienna had suffered much, and the French army had carried off the 2,000 cannons and the 100,000 guns which had been contained in her arsenals. 1540 GERMANY, 1805-1806. End of the Holy Roman Empire, GERMANY, 1806. On the 16th of January, 1806, the emperor Fran- cis returned to his capital. He was enthusiasti- cally received, and the Viennese returned to Uie luxurious and easy way of life which has always characterized them. . . . Austria seemed no longer to have any part to play in German politics. Bavaria, Wilrtembergaud Baden had been formed into a separate league — the Confederation of the Rhine — under French protection. On the 1st of August, 1806, these states announced to the Reichstag at Ratisbon that they looked upon the empire as at an end, and on the 6th, Francis II. formally resigned the empire altogether, and re- leased all the imperial officials from their engage- ments to him. Thus the sceptre of Charlemagne fell from the hands of the dynasty which had held it without interruption from 1438." — L. Leger, Hist, of Austm-IIiingitry, ch. 25. — "Every bond of union was dissolved with the diet of the empire and with the imperial chamber. The barons and counts of the empire and the petty princes were mediatised ; the princes of Hohen- lohe, Oettingen, Schwarzenberg, Thurn, and Taxis, the Truchsess von Waldburg, Fiirstenberg, Fug- ger, Leiniugen, Lowenstein, Solms, Hesse-Hom- burg, Wied-Runkel, and Orange-Fulda, became subject to the neighbouring Rhenish confeder- ated princes. Of the remaining six imperial free cities, Augsburg and Nuremberg fell to Bavaria; Frankfurt, under the title of grand-duchy, to the ancient elector of Mayence, who was again trans- ferred thither from Ratisbon. The ancient Hanse- towns, Hamburg, Ltlbeck, and Bremen, alone retained their freedom." — "W. Menzel, Hist, of German!/, ch. 253 {v. 3). — "A swift succession of triumphs had left only one thing still preventing the full recognition of the Corsican warrior as sovereign of Western Europe, and that one was the existence of the old Romano-Germanic Em- pire. Napoleon had not long assumed his new title when he began to mark a distinction between 'la France' and 'I'Empire Fran9aise. ' France had, since A. D. 1792, advanced to the Rhine, and, by the annexation of Piedmont, had over- stepped the Alps ; the French Empire included, besides the kingdom of Italy, a mass of depen- dent states, Naples, Holland, Switzerland, and many German principalities, the allies of France in the same sense in which the ' socii populi Ro- mani' were allies of Rome. When the last of Pitt's coalitions had been destroyed at Austerlitz, and Austria had made her submission by the peace of Presburg, the conqueror felt that his hour was come. He had now overcome two Emperors, those of Austria and Russia, claiming to represent the old and new Rome respectively, and had in eighteen months created more kings than the occupants of the Germanic throne in as many centuries. It was time, he thought, to sweep away obsolete pretensions, and claim the sole inheritance of that Western Empire, of which the titles and ceremonies of his court presented a grotesque imitation. The task was an easy one after what had been already accomplished. Pre- vious wars and treaties had so redistributed the territories and changed the constitution of the Germanic Empire that it could hardly be said to exist in anything but name. . . . The Emperor Francis, partly foreboding the events that were at hand, partly in order to meet Napoleon's as- sumption of the imperial name by depriving that name of its peculiar meaning, began in A. D. 1805 to style himself 'Hereditary Emperor of Austria,' while retaining at the .same time his former title. The next act of the drama was one in which we may more readily pardon the am- bition of a foreign conqueror than the traitorous selfishness of the German princes, who broke every tie of ancient friendship and duty to grovel at his throne. By the Act of the Confedera- tion of the Rhine, signed at Paris, July 13th, 1806, Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, Baden, and several other states, sixteen in all, withdrew from the body and repudiated the laws of the Empire, while on August 1st the French envoy at Re- gensburg announced to the Diet that his master, who had consented to become Protector of the Confederate princes, no longer recognized the existence of the Empire. Francis II. resolved at once to anticipate this new Odoacer, and by a declaration, dated August 6th, 1806, resigned the imperial dignit}'. His deed states that finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfil the obligations imposed by his capitula- tion, he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states who formed it, and retires to the government of his hereditary dominions under the title of ' Emperor of Aus- tria. ' Throughout, the term 'German Empire' (Deutsches Reich) is employed. But it was the crown of Augustus, of Constantine, of Charles, of Maximilian, that Francis of Hapsburg laid down, and a new era in the world's history was marked by the fall of its most venerable institution. One thousand and six years after Leo the Pope had crowned the Prankish king, eighteen hun- dred and fifty-eight years after Cfesar had con- quered at Pharsalia, the Holy Roman Empire came to its end." — J. Bryce, T!ie Holy Roman Empire, ch. 20. A. D. l8o6 (January— August).— The Con- federation of the Rhine. — Cession of Hanover to Prussia. — Double dealing and weakness of the latter. — Her submission to Napoleon's in- sults and wrongs. — Final goading of the na- tion to war. — " The object at which all French politicians had aimed since the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the, exclusion of both Aus- tria and Prussia from influence in Western Ger- many, was now completely attained. The tri- umph of Prcuch statesmanship, the consumma- tion of two centuries of German discord, was seen in the Act of Federation subscribed by the Western Gorman Sovereigns in the summer of 1806. By this Act the Kings of Bavaria and Wi'irtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and 13 minor princes, united themselves, in the League known as the Rhenish Confederacy, under the protection of the French Emperor, and undertook to fur- nish contingents, amounting to 63,000 men, in all wars in which the French Empire should engage. Their connection with the ancient Germanic Body was completely severed ; the very town in which the Diet of the Empire had held its meet- ings was annexed by one of the members of the Confederacy. The Confederacy itself, with a population of 8,000,000, became for all purposes of war and foreign policy a part of France. Its armies were organised by French officers; its frontiers were fortified by French engineers ; its treaties were made for it at Paris. In the domes- tic changes which took place within these States the work of consolidation begun in 1801 was car- ried forward with increased vigour. Scores of tiny principalities which had escaped dissolution 3541 GERMANY, 1806. Napoleon's insolence. GERMANY, 1806. in the earlier movement were now absorbed by their stronger neighbours. . . . With the estab- lishment of the Rlienish Confederacy and tlie conquest of Naples, Napoleon's empire reached, but did not overpass, the limits within which the sovereignty of France might probably have been long maintained. ... If we may judge from the feeling with which Napoleon was regarded in Germany down to the middle of the year 1806, and in Italy down to a much later date, the Em- pire then founded might have been permanently upheld, if Napoleon had abstained from attack- ing other States." During the winter of 1806, Count Haugwitz, the Prussian minister, had vis- ited Paris "for the purpose of obtaining some modification in the treaty which he had signed [at the palace of SchOnbrunn, near Vienna] on be- half of Prussia after the battle of Austerlitz. The principal feature in that treaty had been the grant of Hanover to Prussia by the French Em- peror in return for its alliance. This was the point which above all others excited King Fred- erick "William's fears and scruples. He desired to acquire Hanover, but he also desired to derive his title rather from its English owner [King George III., who was also Elector of Hanover] than from its French invader. It was the object of Haugwitz' visit to Paris to obtain an altera- tion in the terms of the treaty which should make the Prussian occupation of Hanover ap- pear to be merely provisional, and reserve to the King of England at least a nominal voice in its ultimate transfer. In full confidence that Napo- leon would agree to such a change, the King of Prussia, on taking possession of Hanover in Jan- uary, 1806, concealed the fact of its cession to himself by Napoleon, and published an untruth- ful proclamation. . . . The bitter truth that the treaty between France and Prussia contained no single word reserving the rights of the Elector, and that the very idea of qualifying the abso- lute cession of Hanover was an afterthought, lay hidden in the conscience of the Prussian Government. Never had a Government more completely placed itself at the mercy of a pitiless enemy. Count Haugwitz, on reaching Paris, was received by Napoleon with a storm of indig- nation and contempt. Napoleon declared that the ill-faith of Prussia had made an end even of that miserable pact which had been extorted after Austerlitz, and insisted that Prussia should openly defy Great Britain by closing the ports of Northern Germany to British vessels, and by de- claring itself endowed by Napoleon with Han- over in virtue of Napoleon's own right of con- quest. Haugwitz signed a second and more humiliating treaty [February 15] embodying these conditions ; and the Prussian Government, now brought into the depths of contempt, but unready for immediate war, executed the orders of its master. ... A decree was published ex- cluding the ships of England from the ports of Prussia and from those of Hanover itself (March 28, 1806). It was promptly followed by the seiz- ure of 400 Prussian vessels in British harbours, and by the total extinction of Prussian maritime commerce by British privateers. Scarcely was Prussia committed to this ruinous conflict with Great Britain when Napoleon opened negotia- tions for peace with Mr. Fox's Government. The first condition required by Great Britain was the restitution of Hanover to King George III. It was unhesitatingly granted by Napoleon. Thus was Prussia to be mocked of its prey, after it had been robbed of all its honour. . . . There was scarcely a courtier in Berlin who did not feel that the yoke of the French had become past endur- ance ; even Haugwitz himself now considered war as a question of time. The patriotic party in the capital and the younger officers of the army bitterly denounced the dishonoured Gov- ernment, and urged the King to strike for the credit of his country. . . . Brunswick was sum- moned to the King's council to form plans of a campaign; and appeals for help were sent to Vienna, to St. Petersburg, and even to the hostile Court of London. The condition of Prussia at this critical moment was one which filled with the deepest alarm those few patriotic statesmen who were not blinded by national vanity or by a slavery to routine. . . . Early in the year 1806 a paper was drawn up by Stein, exposing, in lan- guage seldom used by a statesman, the character of the men by whom Frederick William was sur- rounded, and declaring that nothing but a speedy change of system could save the Prussian State from utter downfall and ruin. Two measures of immediate necessity were specified by Stein, the establishment of a responsible council of Minis- ters, and the removal of Haugwitz and all his friends from power. . . . The army of Prussia . . . was nothing but the army of Frederick the Great grown twenty years older. . . . All South- ern Germany was still in Napoleon's hands. The appearance of a Russian force in Dalmatia, after tliat country had been ceded by Austria to the French Emperor, had given Napoleon an excuse for maintaining his troops in their positions be- yond the Rhine. As the probability of a war with Prussia became greater and greater, Napo- leon tightened his grasp upon the Confederate States. Publications originating among the pa- triotic circles of Austria were beginning to ap- peal to the German people to unite against a foreign oppressor. An anonymous pamphlet, entitled ' Germany in its Deep Humiliation,' was sold by various booksellers in Bavaria, among others by Palm, a citizen of Nuremberg. There is no evidence that Palm was even acquainted with the contents of the pamphlet; but . . . Na- poleon . . . required a victim to terrify those who, among the German people, might be in- clined to listen to the call of patriotism. Palm was not too obscure for the new Charlemagne. The innocent and unoffending man, innocent even of the honourable crime of attempting to save his country, was dragged before a tribunal of French soldiers, and executed within twenty- four hours of his trial, in pursuance of the im- perative orders of Napoleon (August 26). . . . Several years later, . . . the story of Palm's death was one of those that kindled the bitterest sense of wrong ; at the time, it exercised no in- fluence upon the course of political events. Prussia had already resolved upon war." — C. A. Fyffe, Hist, of Modern Eiirope, v. 1, ch. 6-7. Also in : Sir W. Scott, Life of Kapoleon, ch. 51-52. — J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, pt. 2, ch. 4-5 (v. 1). — P. Lanfrey, Hist, of Napoleon, V. 2, ch. 15. A. D. i8o6 (October). — Napoleon's sudden invasion of Prussia. — The decisive battle of Jena. — Prostration of the Prussian Kingdom. — "The Emperor of Russia . . . visited Berlin, when the feelings of Prussia, and indeed of all the neighbouring states, were in this fever of 1542 GERMANY, 1806. Jena and its consequences. GERMANY, 180e. excitement. He again urged Fredericlf William to take up arms in the common cause, and offered to back him with all the forces of his own great empire. The Bnglisli government, taking ad- vantage of the same crisis, sent Lord Morpeth to Berlin, with offers of pecuniary supplies — about the acceptance of which, however, the anxiety of Prussia on the subject of Hanover created some difficulty. Lastly, Buonaparte, well in- formed of what was passing in Berlin, and de- sirous, since war must be, to hurry Frederick into the field ere the armies of the Czar could be joined with his, now poured out in the ' Moni- teur' such abuse on the persons and characters of the Queen, Prince Louis, and every illustrious patriot throughout Prussia, that the general wrath could no longer be held in check. War- like preparations of every kind filled the king- dom during August and September. On the 1st of October the Prussian minister at Paris pre- sented a note to Talleyrand, demanding, among other things, that the formation of a confederacy in the nortli of Germany should no longer be thwarted by French interference, and that the French troops within tlie territories of the Rhen- ish League should recross the Rhine into France, by the 8th of the same month of October. But Napoleon was already in person on the German side of the Rhine; and his answer to the Prus- sian note was a general order to liis own troops, in which he called on them to observe in what manner a German sovereign still dared to insult the soldiers of Austerlitz. The conduct of Prus- sia, in thus rushing into hostilities without wait- ing for the advance of the Russians, was as rash as her holding back from Austria during the campaign of Austerlitz had been cowardly. As if determined to profit by no lesson, the Prussian council also directed their army to advance to- wards the French, instead of lying on their own frontier — a repetition of the great leading blun- der of the Austrians in the preceding year. The Prussian army accordingly invaded the Saxon provinces, and the Elector . . . was compelled to accept the alliance which the cabinet of Ber- lin urged on him, and to join his troops with those of the power by which he had been thus insulted and wronged. No sooner did Napoleon know that the Prussians had advanced into the heart of Saxony, than he formed the plan of his campaign ; and the}', persisting in their advance, and taking up their position finally on the Saale, afforded him, as if studiously, the means of re- peating, at their expense, the very manoeuvres which had ruined the Austrians in the preceding campaign." The flank of the Prussian position was turned, — the bridge across the Saale, at Saal- field, having been secured, after a hot engage- ment with the corps of Prince Louis of Prussia who fell in the fight, — " the French army passed entirely round them ; Napoleon seized Naum- burg and blew up the magazines there, — an- nouncing, for the first time, by this explosion, to the King of Prussia and his generalissimo the Duke of Brunswick, that he was in their rear. From this moment the Prussians were isolated, and cut off from all their resources, as completely as the army of Mack was at Ulm, when the French had passed the Danube and overrun Suabia. The Duke of Brunswick hastily en- deavoured to concentrate his forces for the pur- pose of cutting his way back again to the frontier which he had so rashly abandoned. Napoleon, meantime, had posted his divisions so as to watch the chief passages of the Saale, and expected, in confidence, the assault of his outwitted opponent. It was now that he found leisure to answer the manifesto of Frederick William. . . . His letter, dated at Gera, is written in the most elaborate style of insult. . . . The Prussian King under- stood well, on learning the fall of Naumburg. the imminent danger of his position; and his army was forthwith set in motion, in two great masses; the former, where he was in person pres- ent, advancing towards Naumburg; the latter attempting, in like manner, to force their pas- sage through the French line in the neighbour- hood of Jena. The King's march was arrested at Auerstadt by Davoust, who, after a severely contested action, at length repelled the assailant. Napoleon himself, meanwhile, was engaged with the other great body of the Prussians. Arriving on the evening of the 13th October at Jena, he perceived that the enemy were ready to attempt the advance next morning, while his own heavy train was still six-and-thirty hours' march in his rear. Not discouraged with this adverse circum- stance, the Emperor laboured all night in directing and encouraging his soldiery to cut a road through the rocks, and draw up by that means such light guns as he had at command to a position on a lofty plateau in front of Jena, where no man could have expected beforehand that any artil- lery whatever should be planted. . . . Lannes commanded the centre, Augereau the right, Soult the left, and Murat the reserve and cavalry. Soult had to sustain the first assault of the Prus- sians, which was violent — and sudden; for the mist lay so thick on the field that the armies were within half-gunshot of each other ere the sun and wind rose and discovered them, and on that instant Mollendorf charged. The battle was contested well for some time on this point ; but at length Ney appeared in the rear of the Em- peror with a fresh division; and then the French centre advanced to a general charge, before which the Prussians were forced to retire. They moved for some space in good order; but Murat now poured his masses of cavalry on them, storm after storm, with such rapidity and vehe- mence that their rout became inevitable. It ended in the complete breaking up of the army — horse and foot all flying together, in the con- fusion of panic, upon the road to Weimar. At that point the fugitives met and mingled with their brethren flying, as confusedly as themselves, from Auerstadt. In the course of this disastrous day 20,000 Prussians were killed or taken, 300 guns, 20 generals, and 60 standards. The Com- mander-in-Chief, the Duke of Brunswick, being wounded in the face with a grape-shot, was carried early off the field, never to recover. . . . The various routed divisions roamed about the country, seeking separately the means of escape : they were in consequence destined to fall an easy prej'. . . . The Prince of Hohenlohe at length drew together not less than 50,000 of these wandering soldiers," and retreated towards the Oder; but was forced, in the end, to lay down his arms at Prentzlow. "His rear, con- sisting of about 10,000, under the command of the celebrated General Blucher, was so far be- hind as to render it possible for them to attempt escape. Their heroic leader traversed the coun- try with them for some time unbroken, and sustained a variety of assaults, from far superior 1543 GERMANY, 1806. NapoleorVs oppression of Prussia, GERMANY, 1806. numbers, with the most obstinate resolution. By degrees, however, the French, under Soult, hemmed him in on one side, Murat on the otlier, and Bernadotte appeared close behind him. He was thus forced to throw himself into Lubeck, where a severe action was fought in the streets of the town, on the 6th of November. The Prus- sian, in this battle, lost 4,000 prisoners, besides the slain and wounded : he retreated to Schwerta, and there, it being impossible for him to go far- ther without violating the neutrality of Denmark, on the morning of the 7th, Blucher at length laid down his arms. . . . The strong fortresses of the Prussian monarchy made as ineffectual resistance as the armies in the field. . . . Buona- parte, in person, entered Berlin on the 85th of October; and before the end of November, ex- cept Konigsberg — where the King himself had found refuge, and gathered roimd him a few thousand troops . . . — and a few less impor- tant fortresses, the whole of the German posses- sions of the house of Brandenburg were in the hands of the conqueror. Louis Buonaparte, King of Holland, meanwhile had advanced into West- phalia and occupied that territory also, with great part of Hanover, East Friesland, Embden, and the dominions of Hesse-Cassel. " — J. G. Lock- hart, Life of Napoleon, ch. 20. Also in: C. Adams, Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870, ch. 4. — Baron Jomini, Life of Napoleon, ch. 9 (y. 3). — Memoirs of Napo- leon dictated at St. Helena, v. 6, pp. 60-72. — Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, 1789-1815, ch. 43 (v. 10). — Duke of Rovigo, Memoirs, v. 1, pt. 2, ch. 21-23. A. D. i8o6 (October — December). — Napo- leon's ungenerous use of his victory. — His in- sults to the Queen of Prussia. — The kingdom governed as conquered territory. — The French advance into Poland, to meet the Russians. — Saxony made a kingdom. — "Napoleon made a severe and ungenerous use of his victory. Tlie old Duke of Brunswick, respectable from his age, his achievements under the Great Frederick, and the honourable wounds he had recently received on the field of battle, and who had written a letter to Napoleon, after the battle of Jena, recommending his subjects to his generosity, was in an especial manner the object of invec- tive. His states were overrun, and the official bulletins disgraced by a puerile tirade against a general who liad done nothing but discharge his duty to his sovereign. For this he was punished by the total confiscation of his dominions. So virulent was the language employed, and such the apprelicnsions in consequence inspired, that the wounded general was compelled, with great personal suffering, to take refuge in Altona, where he soon after died. The Queen, whose spirit in prosperous and constancy in adverse for- tune had justly endeared her to her subjects, and rendered her the admiration of all Europe, was pursued in successive bulletins with un- manly sarcasms; and a heroic princess, whose only fault, if fault it was, had been an excess of patriotic ardour, was compared to Helen, whose faithless vices had involved her country in the calamities consequent on the siege of Troy. The whole dominions of the Elector of Hesse Cassel were ne.\t seized ; and that prince, who had not even combated at Jena, but merely permitted, when he could not prevent, the entry of the Prussians into his dominions, was dethroned and deprived of all his possessions. . . . The Prince of Orange, brother-in-law to the King of Prussia, . . . shared the same fate : while to the nobles of Berlin he used publicly the cruel expression, more withering to his own reputation tlian theirs, — 'I will render that noblesse so poor that they shall be obliged to beg their bread.' . . . Mean- while the French armies, without any further re- sistance, took possession of tlie wliole country between the Rhine and the Oder ; and in the rear of the victorious bands appeared, in severity un- precedented even in the revolutionary armies, the dismal scourge of contributions. Resolved to maintain tlie war exclusively on the provinces which were to be its theatre. Napoleon had taken only 24,000 francs in specie across the Rliine in the military clicst of the army. It soon appeared from whom the deficiency was to be supplied. On the day after the battle of Jena appeared a proclamation, directing the levy of an extraor- dinary war contribution of 1.59,000,000 francs (£6,300,000) on the countries at war witli France, of which 100,000,000 was to be borne by the Prussian states to the west of the Vistula, 25,000,000 by the Elector of Saxony [who had already detaclicd himself from his alliance with Prussia], and the remainder by the lesser states in tlie Prussian confederacy. This enormous burden . . . was levied with unrelenting sever- ity. . . . Nor was this all. The whole civil au- thorities who remained in the abandoned prov- inces were compelled to take an oath of fidelity to the French Emperor, — an unprecedented step, which clearly indicated the intention of annex- ing the Prussian dominions to the great nation. . . . Early in* November tliere appeared an elab- orate ordinance, which provided for the complete civil organisation and military occupation of the whole country from tlie Rhine to the Vistula. By this decree the conquered states were divided into four departments ; those of Berlin, of Mag- deburg, of Stettin, and of Custrin ; the military and civil government of the wliole conquered territory was intrusted to a governor-general at Berlin, having under him eight commanders of provinces into which it was divided. . . . The same system of government was extended to the duchy of Brunswick, the states of Hesse and Hanover, the duchy of Mecklenburg, and the Hanse towns, including Hamburg, whicli was speedily oppressed by grievous contributions. . . . The Emperor openly announcecl liis deter- mination to retain possession of all these states till England consented to his demands on the subject of the liberty of the seas. . . . Mean- while the negotiations for the conclusion of a separate peace between France and Prussia were resumed. . . . The severity of the terms de- manded, as well as . . . express assurances that no concessions, how great soever, could lead to a separate accommodation, as Napoleon was re- solved to retain all his conquests until a general peace, led, as might have been expected, to the rupture of the negotiations. Desperate as the fortunes of Prussia were, . . . the King . . . declared his resolution to stand or fall with the Emperor of Russia [wlio was vigorously pre- paring to fulfil his promise of help to the stricken nation]. This refusal was anticipated by Napo- leon. It readied him at Posen, whither he had advanced on his road to the Vistula ; and notliing remained but to enter vigorously on the prose- cution of the war in Poland. To this period of 1544 GERMANY, 1806. Napoleon and Russia. GERMANY, 1806-1807. the war belongs the famous Berlin decree [see France- A. D. 1806-1810] of the 21st Novem- ber against the commerce of Great Britain. . . Napoleon .--. . at Posen, in Prussian Poland, gave audience to the deputies of that unhappy kinffdom, who came to implore his support to the remains of its once mighty domimon_. His words were calculated to excite hopes which his subsequent conduct never realised. . . . While the main bodv of the French army was advanc- ino- by rapid 'strides from the Oder to the Vis- tula Napoleon, ever anxious to secure his com- munications, and clear his rear of hostile bodies caused two different armies to advance to support the flanksof the invading force. . . . The whole of the north of Germany was overrun by French troops, while 100,000 were assembling to meet the formidable legions of Russia in the heart ot Poland Vast as the forces of Napoleon were, such prodigious eflforts, over so great an extent of surface, rendered fresh supplies indispensable. The senate at Paris was ready to furnish them ; and on the requisition of the Emperor 80,000 were voted from the youth who were to arrive at the military age in 1807. . . . A treaty offen- sive and defensive, between Saxony and France, was the natural result of these successes. Ihis convention, arranged by Talleyrand was signed at Posen on the 12th December. It stipulated that the Elector of Saxony should be elevated to the dignity of king; he was admitted into the Confederation of the Rhine, and his contingent fixed at 20,000 men. By a separate article, it was provided that the passage of foreign troops across the kingdom of Saxony should take place without the consent of the sovereign ; a provision which sufficiently pointed it out as a inihtary outpost of the great nation — while, by a subsid- iary treaty, signed at Posen three days after _ wards the whole minor princes of the House of Saxonv were also admitted into the Confederacy. —Sir A Alison, Hist, of Earape, 1789-1815, ch. 43, sect. 87-99 (». 10). . ,r 7 o Also in: P. Lanfrey, Hist of Napoleon, ■». 3, cji 16 —Mrs S. Austin, Germany from 1760 to 1814 p 394, and after.— E. H. Hudson, Life and 'Times of Louisa, Queen of Prussia, v. 3, ch. A D. 1806-1807.— Opening of Napoleons campaign against the Russians.— The de ud- ing of the Poles.— Indecisive battle of Eylau. —The campaign against the Russians "opened early in the winter. The 1st of November, the Russians and French inarched towards the Vis- tula the former from the Memel, the latter from the Oder Fifty thousand Russians pressed for- ward under General Benningsen; a second and equal army followed at a distance with a reserve force Some of the Russian forces on the Turk- ish frontier were recalled, but were still remote. The first two Russian armies, with the remaining Prussians, numbered about 120,000. England made many promises and kept few of them thinking more of conquering Spanish and Dutch colonies than of helping her allies. Her aid was limited to a small reinforcement of the Swedes guarding Swedish Pomerania, the only portion of Northern Germany not yet in French power. Gustavus II., the young King of Swe- den weak and impulsive, rushed headlong, with- out' a motive, into the . . . alliance [against Napoleon], destined to be so fatal to Sweden. Eighty thousand men under Murat crossed the Oder and entered Prussian Poland, and an equal number stood ready to sustain them. November 9, Davoufs division entered Posen the principal town of the Polish provinces still preserving the national sentiment, and whose people detested Prussian rule and resented the treachery with which Prussia dismembered Po- land after swearing alliance with her. All along the road, the peasants hastened to meet the French; and at Posen, Davout was hailed with an enthusiasm which moved even him, cold and severe as he was, and he urged Napo eon to ]us- tify the hopes of Poland, who looked to 1"'" aj her savior. The Russian vanguard reached Warsaw before the French, but made no effort to remain there, and recrossed the Vistula. Novem- ber 28 Davout and Murat entered the town, and public delight knew no bounds. It would be a mere illusion to fancy that sentiments of right and iustice had any share in Napoleon s resolve, and that he was stirred by a desire to repair great wrongs. His only question was whether the resurrection of Poland would increase his greatness or not; and if he told the Sultan that he meant to restore Poland, it was because he thought Turkey would assist him the more will- ingly against Russia. He also offered part ot Silesia to Austria, if she would aid him in the restoration of Poland by the cession of her Polish provinces; but it was not a sufficient offer, and therefore not serious. The truth was that he wanted promises from the Poles before he made any to them. . . . Thousands of Poles enlisted under the French flag and joined the Pohsh legions left from the Italian war. Napoleon es- tablished a provisional government of well-known Poles in Warsaw, and required nothing but vol- unteers of the country. He had seized without a blow that line of the Vistula which the Prus- sian king would not barter for a truce, and might have gone into winter-quarters there; but tne Russians were close at hand on the opposite shore iu two great divisions 100,000 strong, in a wooded and marshy country forming a sort ot triangle, whose point touches the union ot the Narew and Ukra rivers with the Vistula, a few leagues below Warsaw. The Russians communi- cated with the sea by a Prussian corps stationed between them and Dantzic. Napoleon would not permit them to hold this post, and resolved to strike a blow, before going into winter-quarters which should cut them off from the sea and drive them back towards the Memel and Lithu- ania. He crossed the Vistula, December 23 and attacked the Russians between the Narew and the Ukra A series of bloody battles followed [the most important being at Pultusk and Golymin Dec 36] in the dense forests and deep bogs ot the thawing land. Napoleon said that he had discovered a fifth element in Poland,— mud. Men and horses stuck in the swamp and the can- nons could not be extricated. Luckily the Rus- sians were in the incompetent hands of General Kamenski, and both parties fought m the dark, the labyrinth of swamps and woods preventing either army from guessing the other's movements. The Russians were finally driven, with great loss, beyond the Narew towards the forests of Bel- ostok, and a Prussian corps striving to assist them was driven back to the sea. . . . The grand army did not long enjoy the rest it so much needed ■ for the Russians, whose losses were more than made up by the arrival of their reserves. 1545 GERMANY, 1806-1807. Eylav and Friedland. GERMANY, 1807. suddenly resumed the offensive. General Ben- ningsen, who gave a fearful proof of his sinister energy by the murder of Paul I. , had been put in command in Kamenski's place. Marching round the forests and traversing the line of lakes which divide the basin of the Narew from those water- courses flowing directly to the sea, he reached the maritime part of old Prussia, intending to cross the Vistula and drive the French from their position in Poland. He had hoped to surprise the French left wing, lying between the Passarge and Lower Vistula, but arrived too late. Ney and Bernadotte rapidly concentrated their forces and fought with a bravery wliich arrested the Russians (January 25 and "27). Napoleon came to the rescue, and having once driven the enemy into the woods and marshes of the interior, now strove to turn those who meant to turn him, by an inverse action forcing them to the sea-coast. . . . Benningsen then halted beyond Eylau, and massed his forces to receive battle next day [Feb- ruary 8]. He had about 70,000 men, tw'ice the artillery of Napoleon (400 guns against 200), and hoped to be joined betimes by a Prussian corps. Napoleon could only dispose of 60,000 out of his 300,000 men, — Ney being some leagues away and Bernadotte out of reach. . . . The battle- field was a fearful sight next day. Twelve thou- sand Russians and 10,000 French lay dying and dead on the vast fields of snow reddened with blood. The Russians, besides, carried off 15,000 wounded. ' What an ineffectual massacre !' cried Ney, as he traversed the scene of carnage. This was too true ; for although Napoleon drove the Russians to the sea, it was not in the way he desired. Benningsen succeeded in reaching Kon- igsberg, where he could rest and reinforce his army, and Napoleon was not strong enough to drive him from this last shelter." — H. Martin, Popular Hist, of Fi-an.ce from 1789, e. 2, ch. 11. Also in: Baron Jomini, Life of Napoleon, ch, 10 (v. 2). — C. Joyneville, Life and Times of Alex- ander /., V. 1, eh. 8. — J. C. Ropes, The First Na- poleon, lect. 3. — Baron de Marbot, Memoirs, v. 1, ch. 39-30, A. D. 1806-1810. — Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and Napoleon's Decrees. See France: A. D. 1806-1810. A. D. 1807 (February — June). — Closer alli- ance of Prussia and Russia. — Treaty of Bar- tenstein. — Napoleon's victory at Friedland. — End of the campaign. — The effect produced in Europe by the doubtful battle of Eylau " was unlucky for France; iu Paris the Funds fell. Bennigsen boldly ordered the Te Deum to be sung. In order to confirm his victory, re-organise his army, reassure France, re-establish the opin- ion of Europe, encourage the Polish insurrection, and to curb the ill-will of Germany and Austria, Napoleon remained a week at Eylau, He ne- gotiated: on one side he caused Talleyrand to write to Zastrow, the Prussian foreign minister, to propose peace and his alliance ; he sent Ber- trand to Memel to offer to re-establish the King of Prussia, on the condition of no foreign inter- vention. He also tried to negotiate with Ben- nigsen ; to which the latter made answer, ' that his master had charged him to tight, and not ne- gotiate.' After some hesitation, Prussia ended by joining her fortunes to those of Russia. By the convention of Bartenstein (25th April, 1807) the two sovereigns came to terms on the follow- ing points: — 1. The re-establishment of Prussia within the limits of 1805. 2. The dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine. 3. The restitu- tion to Austria of the Tyrol and Venice. 4. The accession of England to the coalition, and the aggrandisement of Hanover. 5, The co-opera- tion of Sweden. 6, The restoration of the house of Orange, and indemnities to the kings of Naples and Sardinia. This document is important; it nearly reproduces the conditions offered to Na- poleon at the Congress of Prague, in 1813. Rus- sia and Prussia proposed then to make a more pressing appeal to Austria, Sweden, and Eng- land; but the Emperor Francis was naturally undecided, and the Archduke Charles, alleging the state of the finances and the army, strongly advised him against any new intervention. Swe- den was too weak ; and notwithstanding his fury against Napoleon, Gustavus IU. had just been forced to treat with Mortier. The English min- ister showed a remarkable inability to conceive the situation ; he refused to guarantee the new Russian loan of a hundred and fifty millions, and would lend himself to no maritime diversion. Napoleon showed the greatest diplomatic activ- ity. The Sultan Selim HI. declared war against Russia ; General Sebastiani, the envoy at Con- stantinople, put the Bosphorus in a state of de- fence, and repulsed the English fleet [see Turks: A. D. 1806-1807] ; General Gardane left for Ispa- han, with a mission to cause a Persian outbreak iu the Caucasus. Dautzig had capitulated [May 24, after a long siege], and Lefibvre's 40,000 men were therefore ready for service. Massena took 36,000 of them into Italy. In the spring, Bennigsen, who had been reinforced by 10,000 regular troops, 6,000 Cossacks, and the Imperial Guard, being now at the head of 100,000 men, took the offensive ; Gortchakof commanding the right and Bagration the left. He tried, as in the preceding year, to seize Ney's division; but the latter fought, as he retired, two bloody fights, at Gutstadt and Ankendorff. Bennigsen, again in danger of being surrounded, retired on Heils- berg. He defended himself bravely (June 10); but the French, extending their line on his right, marched on Eylau, so as to cut him off from Konigsberg. The Russian generalissimo re- treated ; but being pressed, he had to draw up at Friedland, on the Alle. The position he had taken up was most dangerous. AH his army was enclosed in an angle of the Alle, with the steep bed of the river at their backs, which in case of mis- fortune left them only one means of retreat, over the three bridges of Friedland. . . . ' AVhcre are the Russians concealed?' asked Napoleon when he came up. When he had noted their situation, he exclaimed, ' It is not every day that one sur- prises the enemy in such a fault.' He put Lannes and Victor in reserve, ordered Mortier to oppose Gortchakof on the left and to remain still, as the movement which ' would be made by the right would pivot on the left. ' As to Ney, he was to cope on the right with Bagration, who was shut in by the angle of the river ; he was to meet them 'with his head down,' without taking any care of his own safety. Ney led the charge with irre- sistible fury ; the Russians were riddled by his artillery at 150 paces: he successively crushed the chasseurs of the Russian Guard, the Ismal'lovski, and the Horse Guards, burnt Friedland by shells, and cannonaded the bridges which were the only means of retreat. . . . The Russian left wing was almost thrown into the river; Bagration, 1546 GERMANY, 1807. D eatii of Tilsit. GERMANY, 1807. ■with the Semenovski and other troops, was hardly able to cover the defeat. On the Russian right, Gortchakof, who had advanced to attack the ^movable Mortier, had only time o ford t^he Alle Count Lambert retired with 29 guns by the left bank; the rest fled by the right bank, closely pursued by the cavalry. Meanwhile Murat Davoust, and Soult, who had taken no part to the battle, arrived before K6nigsberg Lestocq, with 2.5,000 men tried to defend it but on learning the disaster of Fnedland he hastily evacuated it. Only one fortress now remained to Frederick William - the little town ot :\Iemc The Russians had lost at Fnedland from 15 000 to 20 000 men, besides 80 guns (June U, 1800- Alexander had no longer an army. Only one man, Barclay de Tolly, proposed to contmue the war • but in order to do this it would be necessary to re-enter Russia, to penetrate into the very heart of the empire, to burn everything on the way, and only present a desert to the enemy. Alexander hoped to get off more cheaply. He wrote a severe letter to Bennigsen, and gave him powers to treat."— A. Rambaud, Hist, oj Rimui, v. 2, ch. 12. . ,, . o / Also in : Duke de Rovigo, Memoirs, v. 3, pt. 1, ch. 4-6. _. -,. 1 r-T-i A D. 1807 {June—July).-The Treaty of Til- sit —Its known and its unknown agreements. —•"'Alexander I. now determined to negotiate 111 person with the rival emperor, and on the 2oth ot June the two sovereigns met at Tilsit, on a raft which was moored in the middle ot the JNie- men The details of the conference are a secret, as Napoleons subsequent account of it is un- trustworthy, and no witnesses were present. All that is certain is that Alexander I whose char- acter was a curious mixture of nobility and weak- ness was completely won over by his conqueror. Napoleon . . . instead of attempting to impose extreme terms upon a country which it was impossible to conquer, . . . offered te. share with Russia the supremacy in Europe which had been won by French arms. The only conditions were the abandonment of the cause of the old monarchies, which seemed hopeless, and an al- liance with France against England.^ Alexander had several grievances against the English gov- ernment, especially the lukewarm support that had been given in recent operations, and macle no objection to resume the policy of his prede- cessors in this respect. Two interviews sufficed to arrange the basis of an agreement. Both sovereigns abandoned their aUies without scruple. Alexander gave up Prussia and Sweden, while Napoleon deserted the cause of the Poles, who had trusted to his zeal for their independence and of the Turks, whom his envoy had recently in- duced to make war upon Russia. The Treaty of Tilsit was speedily drawn up; on the -Ui of July peace was signed between France and Russia, on the 9th between France and Prussia. Frederick William III. had to resign the whole of his king- dom west of the Elbe, together with a 1 the ac- quisitions which Prussia had made m the second and third partitions of Poland, The provinces that were left, amounting to barely half of what he had inherited, were burthened with the pay- ment of an enormous sum as compensation to France The district west of the Elbe was united with Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, and ultimately with Hanover, to form the kmgdom of West- phalia which was given to Napoleon s youngest 1547 brother, Jerome. Of Polish Prussia, one prov- ince, Bialy stock, was added to Russia, and the rest was made into the grand duchy of Warsaw, and transferred to Saxony. Danzig, with the surrounding territory, was declared a free state under Prussian and Saxon protection, but it was really subject to France, and remained a centre of French power on the Baltic. All trade be- tween Prussia and England was cut off. Alex- ander I., on his side, recognised all Napoleons new creations in Europe — the Confederation of the Rhine, the kingdoms of Italy, Naples, Hol- land and AVestphalia, and undertook to mediate between France and England. But the really important agreement between France and Russia was to be found, not in the formal treaties, but in the secret conventions which were arranged by the two emperors. The exact text of these has never been made public, and it is probable that some of the terms rested upon verbal rather than on written understandings, buJt the general drift of them is unquestionable. The bribe ot- tered to Alexander was the aggrandisement ot Russia in the East. To make him an accom- plice in the acts of Napoleon, he was to be al- lowed to annex Finland from Sweden and Mol- davia and Wallachia from Turkey. With regard to Enffland, Russia undertook to adopt Napo- leon's blockade-system, and to obtain the adhesion of those states which still remained open to Eng- lish trade — Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. — R. Lodge, Hist, of Modem Europe, eh. 2i sect, ip _" 'I thought,' said Napoleon at St. Helena, it would benefit the worid to drive these brutes the Turks, out of Europe. But when I reflected what power it would give to Russia, from the number of Greeks in the Turkish dominions who maybe considered Russians, I refused to consent to It especially as Alexander wanted Constanti- nople which would have destroyed the equilib- rium of power in Europe. France would gam EevDt Syria, and the islands; but those were nothin'g to what Russia would have obtained This coincides with Savary's [Duke de Rovigo sj statement, that Alexander told him Napoleon said he was under no engagements to the new Sultan and that changes in the worid inevitably changed the relations of states to one another; and again, Alexander said that, in their conver- sations at Tilsit, Napoleon often told him he did not require the evacuation of Moldavia and Wal- lachiaT he would place things in a train to dis- pense with it, and it was not possible to sufler loneer the presence of the Turks in Europe. He eve^left me,' said Alexander, 'to entertain the proiect of driving them back into Asia._ it 13 only since that he has returned to the idea of leaving Constantinople to them, and some sur- rounding provinces.' One day, when Napoleon was talking to Alexander, he asked his secretary, M Meneval, for the map of Turkey, opened it then renewed the conversation ; and placing his finsrer on Constantinople said several times to the secl'etary, though not loud enough to be heard by Alexander, "' Constantinople, Constantinople, never. It is the capital of the world.' . . . It is very evident in their conversations that Napoleon agred to his [Alexander's] possessing himself of the Turkish Empire up to the Balkan, if not be- yond; though Bignon denies that any plan lor the actual partition of Turkey was embodied in the treaty of Tilsit. Hardenberg, not always well informed, asserts that it was. Savary says GERMANY, 1807. Tlie Pntssian collapse and recovery. GERMANY, 1807-1808. he could not believe that Napoleon would have abandoned the Turks without a compensation in some other quarter; and he felt certain Alexan- der had agreed in return to Napoleon's project for the conquest of Spain, ' which the Emperor had very much at heart.'" — C. Joyneville, Life and Times of Alexander I., i>. 1, cli. 8. Also IN: Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, VIBQ- 1815, eh. 46 (v. 10).— Count Miot de Melito, Mem- oirs, cJi. 34. — P. Lanfrey, Hist, of Napoleon, ch. 3- 4. — Prince de Talleyrand, Memoirs, pt. 3 {v. 1). — A. Thiers, Hist, of the Consulate and the Empire, bk. 27 (i\ 2). A. D. 1807 (July). — The collapse of Prussia and its Causes. — "For the live years that fol- lowed, Prussia is to be conceived, iu addition to all her other humiliations, as in the hands of a remorseless creditor whose claims are decided by himself without appeal, and who wants more than all he can get. She is to be thought of as supporting for more than a year after the con- clusion of the Treaty a French army of more than 150,000 men, then as supporting a French garrison in three principal fortresses, and finally, just before the period ends, as having to support the huge Russian expedition in its passage through the country. ... It was not in fact from the Treaty of Tilsit, but from the system- atic breach of it, that the sufferings of Prussia between 1807 and 1813 arose. It is indeed hardly too much to say that the advantage of the Treaty was received only by France, and that the only object Napoleon can have had in signing it was to inflict more harm on Prussia than he could in- flict by simply continuing the war. Such was the downfall of Prussia. The tremendousness of the catastrophe strikes us less because we know that it was soon retrieved, and that Prussia rose again and became greater than ever. But could this recovery be anticipated ? A great nation, we say, cannot be dissolved by a few disasters; patriotism and energy will retrieve everything. But precisely these seemed wanting. The State seemed to have fallen in pieces because it had no principle of cohesion, and was only held together by an artificial bureaucracy. It had been cre- ated by the energy of its government and the efficiency of its soldiers, and now it appeared to come to an end because its government had ceased to be energetic and its soldiers to be effi- cient. The catastrophe could not but seem as irremediable as it was sudden and complete." There may be discerned "three distinct causes for it. First, tlie undecided and pusillanimous policy pursued by the Prussian government since 1803 had an evident influence upon the result by making the great Powers, particularly England and Austria, slow to render it assistance, and also by making the commanders, especially Bruns- wick, irresolute in action because they could not, even at the last moment, believe the war to be serious. This indecision we have observed to have been connected with a mal-organisation of the Foreign Department. Secondly, the corrup- tion of the military system, which led to the sur- render of the fortresses. Tliirdly, a misfortune for which Prussia was not responsible, its deser- tion by Russia at a critical moment, and tlie for- mation of a close alliance between Russia and France." — J. R. Seeley, Life and Time^ of Stein, pt. 2, ch. 5 (e. 1). A. D. 1807-1808.— The great Revolutionary Reforms of Hardenberg, Stein and Scharn- horst. — Edict of Emancipation. — Military re- organization. — Beginning of local self-govern- ment. — Seeds of a nev? national life. — "The work of those who resisted Napoleon — even if no one of them should ever be placed in the high- est class of the benefactors of mankind — has in some cases proved enduring, and nowhere so much as iu Germany. They began two great works — the reorganisation of Prussia and the revival of the German nationality, and time has deliberately ratified their views. Without retro- gression, without mistake, e.xcept the mistake which in such matters is the most venial that can be committed, that, namely, of over-caution, of excessive hesitation, the edifice which was then founded has been raised higher and higher till it is near completion. . . . Because Frederick- William III. remains quietly seated on the throne through the whole period, we remain totally un- aware that a Prussian revolution took place then — a revolution so comprehensive that the old reign and glories of Frederick may fairly be said to belong to another world — to an ' ancien re- gime ' that has utterly passed away. It was a revolution which, though it did not touch the actual framework of government in such a way as to substitute one of Aristotle's forms of gov- ernment for another, yet went so far beyond gov- ernment, and made such a transformation both in Industry and culture, that it deserves the name of revolution far more, for instance, than our English Revolution of the 17th century. ... In Prussia few of the most distinguished statesmen, few even of those wlio took the lead in her libera- tion from Napoleon, were Prussians. Bllicher himself began life in the service of Sweden, Scharnhorst was a Hanoverian, so was Harden- berg, and Stein came from Nassau. Niebuhr was enticed to Berlin from the Bank of Copen- hagen. Hardenberg served George III. and afterwards the Duke of Brunswick before he en- tered the service of Frederick- William II. ; and when Stein was dismissed by Frederick- William III. in the midst of the war of 1806, though he was a man of property and rank, he took meas- ures to ascertain whether they were in want of a Finance Minister at St. Petersburg. . . . We misapprehend the nature of what took place when we say, as we usually do, that some im- portant and useful reforms were introduced by Stein, Hardenberg, and Scharnhorst. In the first place, such a word as reform is not properly ap- plied to changes so vast, and in the second place, the changes then made or at least commenced, went far be3'ond legislation. We want some word stronger than reform which shall convey that one of the greatest events of modern history now took place in Prussia. Revolution would convey this, but unfortunately we appropriate that word to changes in the form of government, or even mere changes of dynast}', provided they are violent, though such changes are commonly quite insignificant compared to what now took place in Prussia. . . . The form of government indeed was not changed. Not merely did the king continue to reign, but no Parliament was created even with powers ever so restricted. Another generation had to pass away before this innovation, which to us seems tlie beginning of political life, took place. But a nation must be made before it can be made free, and, as we have said, in Prussia there was an administration (in great disorder) and an army, but no nation. AVlien 1548 GERMANY, 1807-1808. The Prussian awakening. GERMANY, 1808. Stein was placed at the head of affairs in the autumn of 1807, he seems, at first, hardly to have been aware that anything was called for beyond the reform of the administration, and the removal of some abuses in the army. Accordingly ho did reform the administration from the top to the bottom, remodelling the whole machinery both of central and local government which had come down from the father of Frederick the Great. But the other work also was forced ujion him, and he began to create the nation by emancipat- ing the peasantry, while Scharnhorst and Gneise- nau were brooding over the ideas which, five years later, took shape in the Landwehr of East Prussia. Besitles emaucipating the peasant he emancipated industry,^ everywhere abolishing that strange caste system which divided the popu- lation rigidly into nobles, citizens, and peasants, and even stamped every acre of land in the country with its own unalterable rank as noble, or citizen, or peasant laud. Emancipation, so to speak, had to be given before enfranchisement. The peasant must have something to live for; freewill must be awakened in the citizen ; and he must be taught to fight for something before he could receive political liberty. Of such liberty Stein only provided one modest germ. By his Stadteordnung he introduced popular election into the towns. Thus Prussia and France set out towards political liberty by different roads. Prussia began modestly with local liberties, but did not for a long time attem])t a Parliament. France with her charte, and in imitation of France many of the small German States, had grand popu- lar Parliaments, but no local liberties. And so for a long time Prussia was regarded as a back- ward State. ... It was only by accident that Stein stopped short at municipal liberties and created no Parliament. He would have gone further, and in the last years of the wartime Hardenberg did summon deliberative assemblies, which, however, fell into disuse again after the peace. ... In spite however of all reaction, the change irrevocably made by the legislation of that time was similar to that made in France by the Revolution, and caused the age before Jena to be regarded as an ' ancien regime. ' But in addition to this, a change had been made in men's minds and thoughts by the shocks of the time, which prepared tlie way for legislative changes which have taken place since. How unprece- dented in Prussia, for instance, was the dicta- torial authority wielded by Hardenberg early in 1807, by Stein in the latter part of that year and in 1808, and by Hardenberg again from 1810 onwards! Before that time in the history of Prussia we find no subject eclipsing or even ap- proaching the King in importance. Prussia had been made what she was almost entirely by her electors and kings. In war and organisation alike all had been done by the Great Elector or Frederick-William I., or Frederick the Great. But now this is suddenly changed. Everything now turns on the minister. Weak ministers are expelled by pressure put upon the king, strong ones are forced upon him. He is compelled to create a new ministerial power much greater than that of an English Prime Minister, and more like that of a Grand Vizier, and by these dictators the most comprehensive innovations are made. The loyalty of the people was not impaired by this ; on the contrary, Stein and Hardenberg saved the Monarchy; but it evidently transferred the Monarchy, though safely, to a lower pedestal." — J. R. Seeley, Prussian History (Maomillan's Mag., V. 36, pp. 342-351). Also in : The same, Life and Times of Stein, pt. 3-5 {v. 1-2). — R. B. D. Morier, Agrarian Legislation of Prussia {Systems of Land Tenure: Cohden Club Essays, ch. 5), A. D. i8o8. — The Awakening of the national spirit. — Effects of the Spanish rising, and of Fichte's Addresses. — The beginnings of the great rising in Spain against Napoleon (see Spain: A. D. 1808, and after) "were watched by Stein from Berlin while he was engaged in negotiating with Daru ; we can imagine with what feehngs! His cause had been, since his ministry began, substantially the same as that of Spain; but he had perhaps understood it himself but dimly, at any rate hoped but faintly to see it prosper. But now he ripens at once into a great nationality statesman; the reforms of Prussia begin at once to take a more military stamp, and to point more decisively to a great uprising of the German race against the foreign oppressor. The change of feeling which took place in Prussia after the beginning of the Spanish troubles is very clearly marked in Stein's autobiography. After describing the negotia- tions at Paris and Berlin, ... he begins a new paragraph thus: 'The popular war which had broken out in Spain and was attended with good success, had heightened the irritation of the inhabitants of the Prussian State caused by the humiliation they had suffered. All thirsted for revenge ; plans of insurrection, which aimed at exterminating the French scattered about the country, were arranged ; among others, one was to be carried out at Berlin, and I had the greatest trouble to keep the leaders, who confided their intentions to me, from a premature outbreak. We all watched the progress of the Spanish war and the commencement of the Austrian, for the preparations of that Power had not remained a secret; expectation was strained to the highest point ; pains were necessary to moderate the ex- cited eagerness for resistance in order to profit by it in more favourable circumstances. . . . Fichte's Addresses to the Germans, delivered during the French occupation of Berlin and printed under the censorship of M. Bignon, the Intendant, had a great effect upon the feelings of the cultivated class.' . . . That iu the midst of such weighty matters be should remember to mention Fichte's Addresses is a remarkable testimony to the effect produced by them on the public mind, and at the same time it leads us to conjecture that they must have strongly influenced his own. They had been delivered in the winter at Berlin and of course could not be heard by Stein, who was then with the King, but they were not published till April. As affecting public opinion there- fore, and also as known to Stein, the book was almost exactly of the same date as the Spanish Rebellion, and it is not unnatural that he should mention the two influences together. . . . When the lectures were delivered at Berlin a rising in Spain was not dreamed of, and even when they were published it had not taken place, nor could clearly be foreseen. And yet they teach the same lesson. That doctrine of nationality which was taught affirmatively by Spain had been suggested to Fichte's mind by the reductio ad absurdum which events had given to the negation of it in Germany. Nothing could be 1549 GERMANY, 1808. stein and the Tugendbund. GERMANY, 1808. more convincing than the concurrence of the two methods of proof at the same moment, and the prophetic elevation of these discourses (which may have furnished a model to Carlyle) was well fitted to drive the lesson home, par- ticularly to a mind like Stein's, which was quite capable of being impressed by large principles. . . . Fichte's Addresses do not profess to have in the first instance nationality for their subject. They profess to inquire whether there exists any grand comprehensive remedy for the evils with which Germany is afflicted. They find such a remedy where Turgot long before had looked for deliverance from the selfishness to which he traced all the abuses of the old regime, that is, in a grand system of national education. Fichte reiterates the favourite doctrine of modern Liberalism, that education as hitherto conducted by the Church has aimed only at securing for men happiness in another life, and that this is not enough, inasmuch as they need also to be taught how to bear themselves in the present life so as to do their duty to the state, to others and themselves. He is as sure as Turgot that a system of national education will work so powerfully upon the nation that in a few years they will not be recognisable, and he explains at great length what should be the nature of this system, dwelling principally upon the impor- tance of instilling a love of duty for its own sake rather than for reward. Tlie method to be adopted is that of Pestalozzi. Out of fourteen lectures the first three are entirely occupied with this. But then the subject is changed, and we find ourselves plunged into a long discussion of the peculiar characteristics which distinguish Germany from other nations and particularly other nations of German origin. At the present day this discussion, which occupies four lectures, seems hardly satisfactory ; but it is a striking deviation from the fashion of that age. . . . But up to this point we perceive only that the sub- ject of German nationality occupies Fichte's mind very much, and that there was more significance than we first remarked in the title. Addresses to the German Nation ; otherwise we have met with nothing likely to seem of great importance to a statesman. But the eightTi Lecture propounds the question, What is a Nation in the higher signification of the word, and what is patriot- ism? It is here that he delivers what might seem a commentary on the Spanish Revolution, which had not yet taken place. . . . Fichte proclaims the Nation not only to be different from the State, but to be something far higher and greater. . . . Applied to Germany this doctrine would lead to the practical conclusion that a united German State ought to be set up in which the separate German States should be absorbed. ... In the lecture before us he con- tents himself with advising that patriotism as distinguished from loyalty to the State should be carefully inculcated in the new education, and should influence the individual German Govern- ments. It would not indeed have been safe for Fichte to propose a political reform, but it rather appears that he thought it an advantage rather than a disadvantage that the Nation and the State should be distinct. ... I should not have lingered so long over this book if it did not strike me as the prophetical or canonical book which announces and explains a great tran- sition in modern Europe, and the prophecies of which began to be fulfilled immediately after its publication by the rising in Spain. ... It is this Spanish Revolution which when it has extended to the other countries we call the Anti- Napoleonic Revolution of Europe. It gave Europe years of unparalleled bloodshed, but at the same time years over which there broods a light of poetry ; for no conception can be more profoundly poetical than that which now woke up in every part of Europe, the conception of the Nation. Those years also led the way to the great movements which have filled so much of the nineteenth century, and have rearranged the whole central part of the map of Europe on a more nattu-al system." — J. R. Seeley, Life and Tim^3 of Stein, pt. 4, ch. 1 (c. 3). A. D. i8o8 (January). — Kehl, Cassel and Wesel annexed to France. See France: A. D. 1807-1808 (November — February). A. D. i8o8 (April — December).— The Tu- gendbund, and Stein's relations to it. — "Eng- lish people think of Stein almost exclusively in connexion with land laws. But the second and more warlike period of his Ministry has also left a faint impression in the minds of many among us, who are in the habit of regarding him as the founder of the Tugendbund. In August and Sep- tember [1808], the very months in which Stein was taking up his new position, this society was attracting general attention, and accordingly this is the place to consider Stein's relation to it. That he was secretly animating and urging it on must have seemed at the time more than prob- able, almost self-evident. It aimed at the very objects which he had at heart, it spoke of him with warm admiration, and in general it used language which seemed an echo of his own. . . . Whatever his connexion with the Tugendbund may have been, it cannot have commenced till April, 1808, for it was in that month that the Tugendbund began its existence, and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to represent Stein as beginning to revolutionise the country with the help of the Tugendbund, for his revolu- tionary edict had been promulgated in the Octo- ber before. ... In his autobiography . . . Stein [says] : ' An effect and not the cause of this pas- sionate national indignation at the despotism of Napoleon was the Tugendbund, of which I was no more the founder than I was a member, as I can assert on my honour and as is well known to its originators. About July, 1808, there was formed at Konigsberg a society consisting of several officers, for example. Col. Gneisenau, Grolmann, &c. , and learned men, such as Pro- fessor Krug, in order to combat selfishness and to rouse the nobler moral feelings ; and according to the requirements of the existing laws they communicated their statutes and the list of their members to the King's Majesty, who sanctioned the former without any action on my part, it being my belief in general that there was no need of any other institute but to put new life into the spirit of Christian patriotism, the germ of which lay already in the existing institutions of State and Church. The new Society held its meetings, but of the proceedings I knew nothing, and wlien lat«r it proposed to exert an indirect influence upon educational and military institu- tions I rejected the proposal as encroaching on the department of the civil and ecclesiastical governing bodies. As I was driven soon after- wards out of the public service, I know nothing 1550 GERMANY, 1808. NapoleotCs attack on Austria, GERMANY, 1809. of the further operations of this Society.' . . . He certainly seems to intend his readers to un- derstand that he had not even any indirect or un- derhand connexion with it, but from first to last stood entirely aloof, except in one case when he interfered to restrain its action. It is even pos- sible that by telling us that he had nothing to do with the step taken by the King wlien he sanc- tioned the statutes of the society he means to hint that, liad his advice been taken, the society would not have been even allowed to exist. . . . The principal fact affirmed by Stein is indeed now be- yond controversy ; Stein was certainly not either the founder or a member of the Tugendbund. The society commonly known by that name, which however designated itself as the Moral and Scientific Union, was founded by a number of persons, of whom many were Freemasons, at KOnigsberg in the month of April. Professor Krug, mentioned by Stein, was one of them; Gneisenau and Grolmann, whom he also men- tions, were not among the first members, and Gneisenau, it seems, was never a member. The statutes were drawn b}' Krug, Bardeleben and Baersch, and if any one person can be called the Founder of the Tugendbund, the second of these, Bardeleben, seems best to deserve the title. The Order of Cabinet by which the society was licensed is dated KOnigsberg, June 30th, and runs as follows : ' The revival of morality, reli- gion, serious taste and public spirit, is assuredly most commendable ; and, so far as the society now being formed under the name of a Virtue Union (Tugendverein) is occupied with this within the limits of the laws of the country and without any interference in politics or public administra- tion, His Majesty the King of Prussia approves the object and constitution of the society. ' . . . From KOnigsberg missionaries went forth who established branch associations, called Chambers, in other towns, first those of the Province of Prussia, Braunsberg, Elbing, Graudenz, Eylau, Hohenstein, Memel, StallupOhnen; then in August and September Bardeleben spread the movement with great success through Silesia. The spirit which animated the new society could not but be approved by every patriot. They had been deeply struck with the decay of the nation, as shown in the occurrences of the war, and their views of the way in which it might be revived were much the same as those of Stein and Fichte. The only question was whether they were wise in organis- ing a society in order to promulgate these views, whether such a society was likely to do much good, and also whether it might not by possibil- ity do much harm. Stein's view, as he has given it, was that it was not likely to do much good, and that such an organisation was unnecessary. ... It did not follow because he desired Estates or Parliaments that he was prepared to sanction a political club. ... It may well have seemed to him that to suffer a political club to come into existence was to allow the guidance of the Revolution which he had begun to pass out of his hands. There appears, then, when we con- sider it closely, nothing unnatural in the course which Stein declares himself to have taken. " — J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, pt. 4, ch. 3 (v. 2). Also in ; T. Frost, Secret Societies of the Euro- pean Remlution, v. 1, ch. 4. A. D. i8o8 (September— October).— Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt. See France : A. D. 1808 (September — October). A. D. 1809 (January — June). — Outburst of Austrian feeling against France. — Reopening of war. — Napoleon's advance to Vienna. — His defeat at Aspern and perilous situation. — Aus- trian reverses in Italy and Hungary. — "The one man of all the Austrians who felt the least amount of hatred against France, was, perhaps, the Emperor. All his family and all his people — nobles and priests, the middle classes and the peasantry — evinced a feeling full of anger against the nation which had upset Europe. . . . By reason of the French, the disturbers and spoilers, the enemies of the human race, despisers of morality and religion alike. Princes were suffer- ing in their palaces, workmen in their shops, business men in their offices, priests in their churches, soldiers in their camps, peasants in their huts. The movement of exasperation was irresistible. Every one said that it was a mistake to have laid down their arms ; that they ought against France to have fought on to the bitter end, and to have sacrificed the last man and the last florin ; that they had been wrong in not hav- ing gone to the assistance of Prussia after the Jena Campaign; and that the moment had ar- rived for all the Powers to coalesce against the com- mon enemy and crush him. . . . All Europe had arrived at a paroxysm of indignation. What was she waiting for before rising ? A signal. That signal Austria was about to give. And this time with what chances of success I The motto was to be ' victory or death. ' But they were sure of vic- tory. The French army, scattered from the Oder to the Tagus, from the mountains of Bohemia to the Sierra Morena, would not be able to resist the onslaught of so many nations eager to break their bonds. . . . Vienna, in 1809, indulged in the same language, and felt the same passions, that Beriin did in 1806. . . . The Landwehr, then only organized a few months, were impatiently awaiting the hour when they should measure themselves against the Veterans of the French army. Volunteers flocked in crowds to the col- ours. Patriotic subscriptions flowed in. . . . Boys wanted to leave school to fight. All classes of society vied with each other in zeal, courage, and a spirit of sacrifice. When the news was made public that the Archduke Charles had, on the 20th of February, 1809, been appointed Gen- eralissimo, there was an outburst of joy and con- fidence from one end of the Empire to the other." ■ — Imbert de Saint- Amand, Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise, pt. 1, ch. 2. — " On receiving decisive intelligence of these hostile preparations, Napo- leon returned with extraordinary expedition from Spain to Paris, in January, 1809, and gave orders to concentrate his forces in Germany, and call out the full contingents of the Confederation of the Rhine. Some further time was consumed by the preparations on either side. At last, on the 8th of April, the Austrian troops crossed the fron- tiers at once on the Inn, in Bohemia, in the Tyrol and in Italy. The whole burthen of the war rested on Austria alone, for Prussia remained neu- tral, and Russia, now allied to France, was even bound to make a show at least, though it were no more, of hostility to Austria. On the same day on which the Austrian forces crossed the frontiers, the Tyrol rose in insurrection [see below : A. D. 1809-1810 (April — February)], and was swept clear of the enemy in four days, with the excep- tion of a Bavarian garrison, that still held out in Kufstein. The French army was at this time 1551 GERMANY, 1809. Ifapoleon in Vienna. GERMANY, 1809. dispersed over a line of forty leagues in exteut, with numerous undefended apertures between the corps ; 80 that the fairest possible opportunity pre- sented itself to the Austrians for cutting to pieces the scattered forces of the French, and marching in triumph to the Rhine. As usual, however, the archduke's early movements were subject- ed to most impolitic delays by the Aulic Coun- cil; and time was allowed Napoleon to arrive on the theatre of war (April 17), and repair the faults committed by his adjutant-general, Berthier. lie instantly extricated his army from its perilous position — almost cut in two by the advance of the Austrians — and, beginning on the 19th, he beat the latter in five battles on five successive days, at Thaun, Abensberg, Landshut, Eckmilhl, and Ratisbon. The Archduke Charles retired into Bohemia to collect reinforcements, but Gen- eral Hiller was, in consequence of the delay in re- pairing the fortifications of Linz, unable to main- tain that place, the possession of which was important, on account of its forming a connecting point between Bohemia and the Austrian Ober- land. Hiller, however, at least saved his honour by pushing forward to the Traun, and in a fear- fully bloody encounter at Ebersberg, captured three Frencli eagles, one of his colours alone fall- ing into the enemy's hands. He was, neverthe- less, compelled to retire before the superior forces of the French, and crossing over at Krems to the Igft bank of the Danube, he formed a junction with the Archduke Charles. The way was now clear to Vienna, which, after a slight show of de- fence, capitulated to Napoleon on the 12th of May. The Archduke Charles had hoped to reach the capital before the Frencli, and to give battle to them beneath its walls ; but as he had to make a circuit whilst the French pushed forward in a direct line, his plan was frustrated, and he ar- rived, when too late, fromBohemia. Both armies, separated by the Danube, stood opposed to one another tn the vicinity of the imperial city. Both commanders were desirous of coming to a decisive engagement. The French had secured the island of Lobau, to serve as a mustering place, and point of transit across the Danube. The archduke al- lowed them to establish a bridge of boats, being resolved to await them on the Marchfeld. There it was that Rudolph of Habsburg, in the battle against Ottakar, had laid the foundation of the greatness of the house of Austria ; and there the political existence of that house and the fate of the monarchy were now to be decided. Having crossed the river, Napoleon was received on the opposite bank, near Aspern and Esslingen, by his opponent, and, after a dreadful battle [in which Marshal Lanues was killed], that was carried on with unwearied animosity for two days. May 21st and 22nd, 1809, he was completely beaten, and compelled to fly for refuge to the island of Lobau. The rising stream had, meanwhile, carried away the bridge, Napoleon's sole chance of escape to the opposite bank. For two days he remained on the island with his defeated troops, without pro- visions, and in hourly expectation of being cut to pieces ; the Austrians, however, neglected to turn the opportunity to advantage, and allowed the French leisure to rebuild the bridge, a work of extreme difficulty. During six weeks afterwards, the two armies continued to occupy their former positions under the walls of Vienna, on the right and left banks of the Danube, narrowdj' watching each other's movements, and preparing for a final struggle. Whilst these events were in progress, the Archduke John had successfully penetrated into Italy, where he had totally defeated the Vice- roy Eugene at Salice, on the 16th of April. Fa- voured by tlio simultaneous revolt of the Tyro- lese, he might have obtained the most decisive results from this victory, but the extraordinary progress of Napoleon down the valley of the Dan- ube rendered necessary the concentration of the whole forces of the monarchy for the defence of the capital. Having begun a retreat, he was pursued by Eugene, and defeated on the Piave, with great loss, on the 8th of May. Escaping thence, without further molestation, to Villach, in Carin- thia, he received intelligence of the fall of Vienna, together with a letter from the Archduke Charles, of the 15th of May, directing him to move with all his forces upon Lintz, to act on the rear and communications of Napoleon. Instead of obey- ing these orders, he thought proper to march into Hungary, abandoning the Tyrol and the whole projected operations on the Upper Danube to their fate. His disobedience was disastrous to the fortunes of his house, for it caused the fruits of the victorj- at Aspern to be lost. He might have arrived, with 50,000 men, on the 24th or 25th, at Lintz, where no one remained but Bernadottc and tlie Saxons, who were incapable of offering any serious resistance. Such a force, concentrated on the direct line of Napoleon's com- munications, iramediatelj' after his defeat at As- pern, on the 22nd, would have deprived him of all means of extricating himself from the most perilous situation in which ho had yet been placed since ascending the consular throne. After totally defeating Jellachich in the valley of the Muhr, Eugene desisted from his pursuit of the army of Italy, and joi-ied Napoleon at Vienna. The Arch- duke John united his forces at Raal) with those of the Hungarian insurrection, under his brother, tlie Palatine. The viceroy again marched against him, and defeated him at fiaab on the 14th of June. The Palatine remained with the Hunga- rian insurrection in Komorn ; Archduke John moved on to Presburg. In the north, the Arch- duke Ferdinand, who had advanced as far as Warsaw, had been driven back by the Poles under Poniatowsky, and by a Russian force sent by the Emperor Alexander to their aid, which, on this success, invaded Galicia." — W. K. Kelly, Hist, of the House of Austria (Continuation of Coxe), ch. 4. Also in: Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, 1789- 1815, ch. 56-57(0. 13).— Duke de Rovigo, Memoirs, v. 2, pt. 2, ch. 3-12. — Baron Jomini, Life of Napo- leon, ch. 14 {i\ 3). — Baron de Marbot, Memoirs, i\ 1, eh. 43-48. A. D. 1809 (April — July). — Risings against the French in the North. — " A general revolt against the French had nearly taken place in Saxonj' and AVestphalia, where the enormous burdens imposed on the people, and the insolence of the French troops, had kindled a deadly spirit of hostility against the oppressors. Everywhere the Tugendbund were in activity; and the ad- vance of the Austriaus towards Franconia and Saxony, at the beginning of the war, blew up the flame. The two first attempts at insurrec- tion, headed respectively by Katt, a Prussian oflicer (April 3), and Dornberg, a Westphalian colonel (April 33), proved abortive ; but the en- terprise of the celebrated Schill was of a more formidable character. This enthusiastic patriot. 1552 GERMANY, 1809. Wagram, and the Peace of Schonbrunn. GERMANY, 1809. then a colonel in the Prussian army, had been compromised in the revolt of Dornberg; and finding himself discovered, he boldly raised the standard (April 29) at the head of 600 soldiers. His force speedily received accessions, but failing in his attempts on Wittenberg and Magdeburg, he moved towards the Baltic, in hope of succour from the British cruisers, and at last threw him- self into Stralsund. Here he was speedily in- vested; the place was stormed (j\Iay 31), and the gallant Schill slain in the assault, a few hours only before the appearance of the British vessels — the timely arrival of which might have secured the place, and spread the rising over all Northern Germany. The Duke of Brunswick-Oels, with his ' black band ' of volunteers, had at the same time invaded Saxony from Bohemia; and though then obliged to retreat, he made a second incur- sion in June, occupied Dresden and Leipsic, and drove the King of AVestphalia into France. After the battle of Wagram he made his way across all Northern Germany, and was eventually con- veyed, with his gallant followers, still 2,000 strong, to England."— Epitome of Alisons Hist, of Europe, sect. .52.5-526. A. D. 1809 (July— September).— Napoleon s victory at Wagram.— The Peace of Schon- brunn.— Immense surrender of Austrian terri- tory.—" The operation of establishing the bridges between the French camp and the left bank of the Danube commenced on the night of the 30th of June ; and during the night of the 4th of July the whole French army, passing between the vil- lages of Enzersdorf and ISIuhlleuten, debouched on the Marchfeld, wheeling to their left. Napo- leon was on horseback in the midst of them by daylight ; all the Austrian fortifications erected to defend the former bridge were turned, the vil- lages occupied by their army taken, and the Archduke Charles was menaced both in flank and rear, the French line of battle appuyed on En- zersdorf being at a right angle to his left wing. Under these circumstances the Archduke, retiring his left, attempted to outflank the French right, while Napoleon bore down upon his centre at Wagram. This village became the scene of a sanguinary struggle, and one house only remained standing when night closed in. The Archduke sent courier after courier to hasten the advance of his brother, between whom and himself was Napoleon, whose line on the night of the 5th ex- tended from Loibersdorf on the right to some two miles beyond Wagram on the left. Napoleon passed the night in massing his centre, still de- termining to manceuvre by his left in order to throw back the Archduke Charles on that side before the Archduke John could come up on the other. At six o'clock on the morning of the 6th of July he commanded the attack in person. Disregarding all risk, he appeared throughout the day in the hottest of the fire, mounted on a snow-white charger, Euphrates, a present from the Shah of Persia. The Archduke Charles as usual committed the error which Napoleon's ene- mies had not even yet learned was invariably fatal to them ; extending his line too greatly he weakened his centre, at the same time opening tremendous assaults on the French wings, which suffered dreadfully. Napoleon ordered Lauriston to advance upon the Austrian centre with a hun- dred guns, supported by two whole divisions of infantry in column. The artillery, when within balf cannon-shot, opened a terrific fire: nothing could withstand such a shock. The infantry, led by Macdonald, charged; the Austrian line was broken and the centre driven back in con- fusion. The right, in a panic, retrograded ; the French cavalry then bore down upon them and decided the battle, the Archduke still fighting to secure his retreat, which he at length eft'ected in tolerably good order. By noon the whole Aus- trian army was abandoning the contest. Their defeat so demoralized them that the Archduke John, who came up on Napoleon's right before the battle was over, was glad to retire with the rest, unnoticed by the enemy. That evening the Marchfeld and Wagram were in possession ot the French. The population of Vienna had watched the battle from the roofs and ramparts of the city and saw the retreat of their army with fear and gloom. Between 300,000 and 400,000 men were engaged, and the loss on both sides was nearly equal. About 20,000 dead and 30,000 wounded strewed the ground ; the latter were conveyed to the hospitals of Vienna. . . . Twenty thousand Austrians were taken prisoners, but the number would have been greater had the French cavalry acted with their usual spirit. Bernadotte, issuing a bulletin, almost assuming to himself the sole merit of the. victory, was removed from his command. Macdonald was created a marshal of the empire on the morning after the battle. . The battle of Wagram was won more by good fortune than skill. Napoleon's strategy was at fault, and had the Austrians fought as stoutly as they did at Aspern, Napoleon would have been signally defeated. Had the Archduke John acted promptly and vigorously, he might have united with his brother's left— which was intact — and overwhelmed the French. . . . The defeated army retired to Znaim, followed by the French ; but further resistance was abandoned by the Emperor of Austria. The Archduke Charles solicited an armistice on the 9th; hostilities ceased, and Napoleon returned to the palace of Schiinbrunn while the plenipotentiaries settled the terms of peace. . . . English Ministers dis- played another instance of their customary spint of procrastination. Exactly eight days after the armistice of Znaim, which assured tliem^ that Austria was no longer in a position to profit by or co-operate with their proceedings, they sent more than 80,000 fighting men, under the com- mand of Lord Chatham, to besiege Antwerp [see England: A. D. 1809 (July— December)]. . . . Operations against Naples proved equally abor- tive. ... In Spain alone English arms were suc- cessful Sir Arthur Wellesley won the battle of Talavera on the 28th of July [see Spain : A. D. 1809 (February— July)]. . . . A treaty of peace between France and Austria was signed on the 14th of October at Vienna [sometimes called the Treaty of Vienna, but more commonly the Peace of Schonbrunn]. The Emperor of Austria ceded Salzburg and a part of Upper Austria to the Con- federation of the Rhine ; ixirt of Bohemia, Cra- cow, and Western Galicia to the King of Saxony as Grand Duke of Warsaw; part of Eastern Galicia to the Emperor of Russia ; and Trieste, Carniola, Friuli, Villach, and some part of Croatia and Dalmatia to France: thus connecting the kingdom of Italy with Napoleon's lUyrian pos- sessions, making him master of the entire coast of the Adriatic, and depriving Austria of its last seaport. It was computed that the Emperor Francis gave up territory to the amount of 1553 GERMANY, 1809-1810. Revolt in the Tyrol. GERMANY, 1809-1810. 45,000 square miles, with a population of nearly 4,000,000. He also paid a large contribution in money. " — R. H. Home, Life of Napoleon, ch. 33. — "The cessions made directly to Napoleon were the county of GOrtz, or Goricia, and tliat of Mon- tefalcone, forming the Austrian Friuli ; the town and government of Trieste, Carniola, the circle of Villach in Carinthia, part of Croatia and Dal- matia, and the lordship of Razuns in the Grison territory. All these provinces, with the excep- tion of Razuns, were incorporated by a decree of Napoleon, with Dalmatia and its islands, into a single state with the name of the Illyrian Prov- inces. They were never united with France, but always governed by Napoleon as an independent state. A few districts before possessed by Napo- leon were also incorporated with them: as Vene- tian Istria :uid Dalmatia with the Bocca di Cat- taro, Ragusa, and part of the Tyrol. . . . The only other articles of the treaty of much impor- tance are the recognition by Austria of any changes made, or to be made, in Spain, Portugal, and Italy ; the adherence of the Emperor to the prohibitive system adopted by France and Rus- sia, and his engaging to cease all correspondence and relationship with Great Britain. By a de- cree made at Ratisbon, April 34th, 1809, Napoleon had suppressed the Teutonic Order in all the States belonging to the Rhenish Confederation, reannexed its possessions to the domains of the prince in which they were situated, and incorpo- rated Mergentheim, with the rights, domains, and revenues attached to the Grand jMastership of the Order, with the Kingdom of Wiirtemberg. These dispositions were confirmed by the Treaty of SchOnbrunn. The effect aimed at by the Treaty of Schonbrunn was to surround Austria with powerful states, and thus to paralyse all her military efforts. . . . The Emperor of Russia . . . was very ill satisfied with the small portion of the spoils assigned to him, and the augmenta- tion awarded to the duchy of Warsaw. Hence the first occasion of coldness between him and Napoleon, whom he suspected of a design to re- establish the Kingdom of Poland. " — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern Europe, bk. 7, eh. 14 («. 4). Also in : Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, 1789- 1815, ch. 59-60 (o. 13).— Gen. Count M. Dumas, Memoirs, ch. 13 (». 2). — E. Baines, Hist, of tlis Wars of the French Bet., bk. 4, ch. 9 {i\ 3).— J. C. Ropes, The First Napoleon, lect. 4. A. D. 1809-1810. — Humboldt's reform of Pub- lic Instruction in Prussia. See Education, MoDEUN : European Countries. — Prussia : A. D. 1809. A. D. 1809-1810 (April— February).— The re- volt in the Tyrol. — Heroic struggle of Andrew Hofer and his countrymen. — "The Tyrol, for centuries a possession of Austria, was ceded to Bavaria by the Peace of Presburg in 1805. The Bavarians made many innovations, in the French style, some good and some bad ; but the moun- taineers, clinging to their ancient ways, resisted them all alike. They hated the Bavarians as foreign masters forced upon them ; and especially detested the military conscription, to which Austria had never subjected them. The priests had an almost unlimited influence over these faithful Catholics, and the Bavarians, who treated them rudely, were regarded as innovators and allies of revolutionary France. Thus the coun- try submitted restlessly to the yoke of the Rhine League until the spring of 1809. A secret un- derstanding was maintained with Austria and the Archduke John, and the people never abandoned the hope of returning to their Austrian allegiance. When the great war of 1809 began, the Emperor Francis summoned all his people to arms. The Tyrolese answered the call. . . . They are a peo- ple trained in early life to the use of arms, and to activity, courage, and ready devices in hunting, and in traveling on their mountain paths. Aus- tria could be sure of the faithfulness of the Tyrol, and made haste to occupy the country. When the first troops were seen entering the passes, the people arose and drove away the Bavarian gar- risons. The alarm was soon sounded through the deepest ravines of the land. Never was there a more united people, and each troop or company chose its own officers, in the ancient German style, from among their strongest and best men. Their commanders were hunters, shepherds, priests: the former gamekeeper, Speckbacher; the innkeeper, Martin Teimer; the fiery Capu- chin monk, Haspiuger, whose sole weapon in the field was a huge ebony crucifix, and many more of like peaceful occupations. At the head of the whole army was a man who, like Saul, towered by a head above all others, while his handsome black beard fell to his girdle — Andrew Hofer, formerly an innkeeper at Passeyr — a man of humble piety and simple faithfulness, who fairly represented the people he led. He regarded the war as dutiful service to his religion, his emperor, and his country. The whole land soon swarmed with little bands of men, making their way to luuspriick (April, 1809), whence the Bavarian garrison fled. Meanwhile a small French corps came from Italy to relieve them. Though fired upon by the peasants from every ravine and hill, they passed the Brenner, and reached the Isel- berg, near Innspriick. But here they were sur- rounded on every side, and forced to surrender. The first Austrian soldiers, under General Chas- teler, then reached the capital, and their welcome was a popular festival. The liberators, as the Tyrolese soldiers regarded themselves, committed no cruelties, but carried on their enterprise in the spirit of a national jubilee. The tidings of the disasters at Regensburg [Ratisbon] now came upon them like a thunderbolt. The withdrawal of the Austrian army then left the Tyrol without protection. Napoleon treated the war as a mu- tiny, and set a price upon Chasteler's head. Neither Chasteler nor any of the Austrian ofli- cers with him understood the warfare of the peasantry. The Tyrolese were left almost wholly to themselves, but they resolved to defend their mountains. On May 11 the Bavarians under Wrede again set out from Salzburg, captured the pass of the Strub after a bloody fight, and then climbed into the valley of the Inn. They practiced frightful cruelties in their way. A fierce struggle took place at the little village of Schwatz; the Bavarians burned the place, and marched to Innspriick. Chasteler withdrew, and the Bavarians and French, under Wrede and Lefevre, entered the capital. The country again appeared to be subdued. But cruelty had em- bittered the people. Wrede was recalled, with his corps, by Napoleon; and now Hofer, with his South Tyrolese, recrossed the Brenner Pass. Again the general alarm was given, the leaders called to arms, and again every pass, every wall of rock, every narrow road was seized. The struggle took place at the Iselberg. The Bava- 1554 GERMANY. 1809-1810. The Rising against )ole( Napoleon. GERMANY, 1812-1813. rians 7 000 in number, were defeated with heavy loss ' The Tyrol now remained for several months undisturbed, during the campaign around Vienna. After the battle of Aspern, an impena procla- mation formally assured the Tyrolese that they should never be severed from the Austrian hm- nire ■ and that no peace should be signed unless their indissoluble union with the monarchy were recognized. The Tyrolese quietly trusted the emperor's promise, until the armistice of Znaira. But in this the Tyrol was not mentioned, and the French and their allies prepared to chastise the loval and abandoned country. — C. i. ^e'W's Hist of Germany, ch. 28.-" In the month of July an army of 40,000 French and Bavarians attacked the Tyrol from the German side; while from Italy, General Rusca, with 18,000 men en_ tered from Clagenfurth, on the southern side of the Tyrolese Alps. Undismayed by his double and formidable invasion, they assailed the in- vadevs as they penetrated into their fastnesses defeated and destroyed them The fate of a division of 10,000 men, belonging to the French and Bavarian army, which entered the Upper Innthal, or Valley of the Inn, will explam m part th2 means by which these victories were ob- tained The invading troops advanced in a long column up a road bordered on the one side by the river Inn, there a deep and rapid torrent where cliffs of immense height overhang both road and river. The vanguard was permitted to advance unopposed as far as Prutz, the object of their expedition. The rest of the army were therefore induced to trust themselves still deeper in this tremendous pass, wliere the precipices, becoming more and more narrow as they ad- vanced, seemed about to close above their heads. No sound but of the screaming of the eagles dis- turbed from their eyries, and the roar of the river reached the ears of the soldier, and on the precipices, partly enveloped in a hazy mist, no human forms showed themselves. At length the voice of a man was heard calling across the ravine 'Shall we begin?'— 'No,' was returned in an authoritative tone of voice, by one who like the first speaker, seemed the inhabitant ot some upper region. The Bavarian detachment halted, and sent to the general for orders; when presently was heard the terrible signal, In the name of the Holy Trinity, cut all loose ! Huge rocks and trunks of trees, long prepared and laid i'n heaps for the purpose, began now to de- scend rapidly in every direction, while the deadly fire of the Tyrolese, who never throw away a shot opened from every bush, crag, or corner of rock which would aflEord the shooter cover. As this dreadful attack was made on the whole line at once two-thirds of the enemy were instantly destroyed; while the Tyrolese, rushing from their shelter, with swords, spears, axes, scythes clubs and all other rustic instruments which could be converted into weapons, beat down and routed the shattered remainder. As the van- guard which liad reached Prutz, was obliged to surrender, very few of the 10,000 invaders are computed to have extricated themselves from the fatal pass. But not all the courage of the Tyro- lese not all the strength of their country, could possibly enable them to defend themselves, when the peace with Austria had permitted Buonaparte to engage his whole immense means for the ac- quisition of these mountains. Austria too — Austria herself, in whose cause they had incurred all the dangers of war, instead of securing their indemnity by some stipulations in the treaty, sent them a cold exhortation to lay down their arms. Resistance, therefore, was abandoned as fruitless; Hofer chief commander of the Tyrolese, resigned his command, and the Bavarians regained the possession of a country which they could never have won back by their own efforts. Holer and about thirty chiefs of these valiant defenders of their country, were put to deatli [February 18101 in poor revenge for the loss their bravery had occasioned. But their fame, as their immor- tal spirit, was beyond the power of the judge alike and executioner; and the place where their blood was shed, becomes sacred to the thoughts of freedom, as the precincts of a temple to those of religion. "-Sir W. Scott, Life of Napoleon, v. ^' Also in; Sir A. Alison, Hut of Europe 1789- 1815, cJi. 58 (V. n).-Hut. o/W'^'- (^^'^«">f^,' July, 1817). -C. H. Hall, Life of Ai^re'J^ Hofeu A D i8io. — Annexation of the Hanse Towns and territory on the North Sea to France. See France ; A. D. 1810 (February- December). , . u a ,^v. A D 1810-1812.— Marriage of the Arcn- duchess Marie Louise of Austria to Napoleon -Alliance of German powers with Napoleon against Russia. See France; A. D-. 1810-181^. A D 1812.— The Russian campaign of Na- poleon and its disastrous ending. See Russia; A. D. 1812 (JiiNE— September), (September), and (October— December). . AD. i8i2-i8i3.-The Teutomc up"smg against Napoleon.-Beginning of the War of Liberation.-Alliance of Prussia and Russia —"During Napoleon's march on Moscow ana his fatal return, Macdonald remained on the Lower Dwina, before Riga, with an observation corps of Prussians and Poles, nor had he ever received an order to retreat from Napoleon. Learning of the misfortunes of the grand army, he went from the Dwina towards the Niemen. As he passed through Couriand, General York, commander of the Prussian troops allowed him to lead the way with the Poles, and then signed an agreement of neutrality with the Russians (December 30, 1812). The Prussian troops, from a military spirit of honor, had fought the Rus- sians bravely ; they retained some scruples rela- tive to the worthy marshal under whom they served and forsook without betraying him, that is they left him time to escape. This was a most important event and the beginning of the inevitable defection of Germany. The attitude of Czar Alexander decided General \ork; the former was completely dazzled by his triumphs, and aspired to nothing less than to destroy Na- poleon and liberate Europe, even France ! With mingled enthusiasm and calculation, he promised all things to all men ; on returning to Wilna, he D-ranted an amnesty for all acts committed in Po- Tand against Russian authority. On the one hand he circulated a rumor that he was about to make himself King of Poland, and, on the other hand, he announced to the Prussians that he was ready to restore the Polish provinces taken from them by Napoleon. He authorized ex-Minister Stein to take possession, as we may say of Old Prussia, just evacuated by the French and to promise the speedy enfranchise- ment of Germany, protesting, at the same time, that he would not dispute ' the legitimate great- 1555 GERMANY, 1813-1813. The War of Liberation. GERMANY, 1813-1813. ness ' of France. The French army, on hearing of York's defection, left KOnigsberg with ten or twelve thousand sick men and eight or ten thousand armed troops, withdrawing to the Vis- tula and thence to Warta and Posen. General Rapp had succeeded in gathering at Dantzic, the great French depot of stores and reserves, 25,000 men, few of whom had gone througli the Russian campaign, and a division of almost equal numbers occupied Berlin. The French had in all barely 80,000 men, from Dantzic to the Rhine, not inchiding their Austrian and Saxon allies, who had fallen back on Warsaw and seemed disposed to fight no more. Jlurat, to whom Napoleon confided the remains of the grand army, followed the Emperor's example and set out to defend his Neapolitan kingdom, leaving the chief command to Prince Eugene. Great agitation prevailed around the feeble French forces still occupying Germany. The Russians themselves, worn out, did not press the French very hotly ; but York and Stein, masters of KOnigsberg, organized and armed Old Prussia without awaiting authorization from the king, who was not considered as a free agent, being under foreign rule. Pamphlets, proclamations, and popular songs were circulated everywhere, provoking the people to rebellion. The idea of German union ran like wildfire from the Niemen to the Rhine ; federal union, not unity in a single body or state, which was not thought of then." — H. Martin, Popular Hist, of France from 1780, V. 3, ch. 16. — "The king of Prussia had suddenly abandoned Berlin [January, 1813], which was still in the hands of the French, for Breslau, whence he declared war against France. A conference also took place between him and the emperor Alexander at Calisch [Kalisch], and, on the 28th of Februar}', 1813, an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between them. The hour for vengeance had at length arrived. The whole Prussian nation, eager to throw off the hated yoke of the foreigner, to obliterate their disgrace in 1806, to regain their ancient name, cheerfully hastened to place their lives and property at the service of the impoverished government. The whole of the able-bodied pop- ulation was put under arras. The standing army was increased : to each regiment were ap- pended troops of volunteers, Jaegers, composed of young men belonging to the higher classes, who furnished their own equipments : a numer- ous Landwehr, a sort of militia, was, as in Aus- tria, raised besides the standing army, and measures were even taken to call out, in case of necessity, the heads of families and elderly men remaining at home, under the name of the Land- sturm. The enthusiastic people, besides fur- nishing the customary supplies and paying the taxes, contributed to the full extent of their means towards defraying the immense expense of this general arming. Every heart throbbed high with pride and hope. . . . More loudly than even in 1809 in Austria was the German cause now discussed, the great name of the Ger- man empire now invoked in Prussia, for in that name alone could all the races of Germany be united against their hereditary foe. The cele- brated proclamation, promising external and in- ternal liberty to Germany, was, with this view, published at Calisch by Prussia and Russia. Nor was the appeal vain. It found an echo in every German heart, and such plain demonstrations of the state of the popular feeling on this side the Rhine were made, that Davoust sent serious warning to Napoleon, who contemptuously re- plied, 'Pahl Germans never can become Span- iards ! ' With his customary rapidity he levied in France a fresh army 300,000 strong, with which he so completely awed the Rhenish con- federation as to compel it once more to take the field with thousands of Germans against their brother Germans. The troops, however, re- luctantly obeyed, and even the traitors were but lukewarm, for they doubted of success. ]Meck- lenburg alone sided with Prussia. Austria re- mained neutral. A Russian corps under General Tettenborn had preceded the rest of the troops and reached the coasts of the Baltic. As early as the 24th of March, 1813, it appeared in Ham- burg and expelled the French authorities from the city. The heavily oppressed people of Ham- burg, whose commerce had been totally annihi- lated by the continental system, gave way to the utmost demonstrations of delight, received their deliverers with open arms, revived their ancient rights, and immediately raised a Hanseatic corps destined to take the field against Napoleon. DOrnberg, the ancient foe to France, with an- other flj'ing squadron took the French division under Morand prisoner, and the Prussian, Major Hellwig (the same who, in 1806, liberated the garrison of Erfurt), dispersed, with merely 120 hussars, a Bavarian regiment 1,300 strong and captured five pieces of artillery. In January, the peasantry of the upper country had already revolted against the conscription, and, in Febru- ary, patriotic proclamations had been dissemi- nated throughout Westphalia under the signature of the Baron von Stein. In this month, also. Captain Maas and two other patriots, who had attempted to raise a rebellion, were executed. As the army advanced. Stein was nominated chief of the provisional government of the still unconquered provinces of Western Germany. The first Russian army, 17,000 strong, under Wittgenstein, pushed forward to Magdeburg, and, at MOkern, repulsed 40,000 French who were advancing upon Berlin. The PrussianSj under their veteran general, BlUcher, entered Saxony and garrisoned Dresden, on the 27th of March, 1813, after an arch of the fine bridge across the Elbe [had] been uselessly blown up by the French. Bliicher, whose gallantry in the former wars had gained for him the general es- teem and whose kind and generous disposition had won the affection of the soldiery, was nomi- nated generalissimo of the Prussian forces, but subordinate in command to Wittgenstein, who replaced Kutusow as generalissimo of the united forces of Russia and Prussia. The Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia accompanied the army and were received with loud acclamations by the people of Dresden and Leipzig." — W. Menzel, Hist, of Germany, ch. 260 {v. 3). — Berna- dotte, the adopted Crown Prince and expectant King of Sweden, had been finally thrown into the arms of the new Coalition against Napoleon, by the refusal of the latter to take Norway from Denmark and give it to Sweden. ' ' The disastrous retreat of the French from Moscow . . . led to the signature of the Treaty of Stockholm on the 2d of March, 1813, by which England acceded to the union of Norway to Sweden, and a Swedish force was sent to Pomerania under General San- dels. On the 18th of May, 1813, Bernadotte 1556 GERMANY, 1812-1813. Saxony humbled. GERMANY, 1813. landed at Stralsund."-Lady Bloomfield, Mog Sketch ofSernadotte (Memoir of Lord Bloomfield, "■ Aifso^iN : J. R. Secley, Life and Tijnss of Stein pt. 7 (v. 3).— A. Thiers, Hist, of the CoimUate and the Empire, hk. 47 (r. 4). . A D. 1813 (April-May).-Battle of Lutzen. —Humiliation of the King of Saxony.— On the 14th April, Napoleon left Pans to assume the command of the army. Previous to his depar- ture with a view, perhaps, of paymg a compli- ment to the Emperor of Austria, the Empress Marie Louise was appointed regent in his absence ; but Prince Schwarzenberg, who had arrived on a special mission from Vienna was treated only as the commander of an au.xiliary corps to which orders would immediately be transmitted. On the 16th he reached Mayence, where, for the last time, vassal princes assembled courtier-like around him; and on the 20th he^as. already at Erfurt in the midst of his newly-raised army. The roads were everywhere cro^^;ded with troops and artillery, closing in towards the b?n.ks of the Saale. From Italy, Marshal Bertrand joined with 40 000 men, old trained soldiers; the Viceroy brought an equal number from the vicinity of Magdeburg; and Marshal Macdonald having on the 29th tiken Merseburg by assault, the who e armv which Bade, the ablest and most accurate of the authors who have written on this campaign, estimates at 140,000 men, was assembled for ac- «on With this mighty force Napoleon deter- mined to seek out the enemy, and bring them ouickly to battle. The Russian and Prussian armies were no sooner united, after the alliance concluded between the sovereigns, than they crossed the Elbe, occupied Dresden, which the Kine of Saxony had abandoned, and advanced to the banks of the Saale. General Bllicher com- manded the Prussians, and Count Wittgenstein the Russian corps; and, death having closed the career of old Marshal KutusofE, . . the com- mand of both armies devolved upon the last men- tioned officer. Informed of the rapid advance of the French the allied monarchs joined their forces which were drawn together in the plains between the Saale and the Elbe; their numerous cavalrv giving them perfect command of this wide and open country. Napoleon, always anx- ious for battle, determined to press on towards Leipzig behind which he expected to hnd the Allied army, who, as it proved were much nearer than he anticipated. At the passage of the Rippach, a small stream that borders the wide plain of Latzen, he already encountered a body of Russian cavalry and artillery under Count Winzingerode; and as the French were weak in horse, they had to bring the whole of Marshal Ney's corps into action before they could oblige the Russians to retire. Marshal Bessieres. the commander of the Imperial Guard, was killed. On the evening of the 1st of Jlay, Napoleon established his quarters in the small town of Lut- zen The Allies, conscious of the vast numerical suneriority of the French, did not intend to risk a general action on the left bank of the Elbe ; but the length of the hostile column of march, which extended from beyond Naumberg almost to the eates of Leipzig, induced Scharnhorst to propose In advance from the direction of Borna and Pegau against the right flank of the enemy, and a sudden attack on the centre of their line in the plain of Lutzen. It was expected that a de- cisive blow might be struck against tbib centre and the hostile army broken before the distant wings could close up and take an effective part in the battle. The open nature of the country well adapted to the action of cava ry, which formed the principal strength "J, *e^ ^J^^vf P°^^ in favour of the plan. . . . The bo d attempt was immediately resolved upon, and the onset fixed for the following morning. The annals ot war can hardly offer a plan of battle more skil- fully conceived than the one of which we have here spoken ; but unfortunately the execution fell far short of the admirable conception. Napoleon, with his Guards and the corps of Launston was already at the gates of Leipzig, preparing for an attack on the city, when about one o clock [May 21 the roar of artillery burst suddenly on the ear and gathering thicker and thicker as it rolled alonl, proclaimed that a general action was en- gaged in the plain of Liitzen,- proclaimed that the army was taken completely at fault and placed in the most imminent peril. . . . 1 he Al- lies who, by means of their numerous cavabry, could easily mask their movement, had advanced unobserved into the plain of Lutzen a,nd the action was begun by a brigade of Blilcher s corps attacking the French in the viUage of Great- GarscheS (Gross-G5rschen). "Reinforcements poured in from both sides, and the narrow and intersected ground between the villages be- came the scene of a most murderous and closely- contested combat of infantry. ... But no at- tempt was made to employ the numerous and splendid cavalry, that stood idly exposed, on open plain, to the shot of the French artillery . . When night put an end to the combat, Great- G&rschen was the sole trophy of the murderous fight that remained in the hands of the Allies On the side of the Allies, 3, 000 Russians and 8 boo Prussians had been killed or wounded: among the slain was Prince Leopold of Hessen- Homburg; among the wounded was the admir- able Scharnhorst, who died a few weeks after- wards The loss sustained by the French is not exactly known; but . . . Jomini tells us that the 3d corps, to which he was attached as chief of the staff, had alone 500 officers and 12,000 men • hors de combat. ' Both parties laid claim to the victory • the French, because the Allies retired on the day after the action; the Allies, because they remained masters of part of the captured battle^ field had taken two pieces of artillery, and HOW nrisoners. ... The Allies alleged, or pretended perhaps, that it was their intention to renew the action on the following morning : in the Prussian army every man, from the king to the humblest soldier was anxious indeed to continue the tray ; and the wrath of BUtcher, who deemed victory certain was altogether boundless when he tound the retreat determined upon. But . . opinion has by de"Tees, justified Count AVittgenstem s resolution to recross the Elbe and fall back on the reinforcements advancing to join the armjr. On the 8th of May, Napoleon held his tri- umphal entrance into Dresden. ... On the ad- vance of the Allies, the Saxon monarch had re- tired to Ratisbon, and from thence to Prague, intending, as he informed Napoleon, to join his efforts to the mediation of Austria. Orders had, at the same time, been given to General Ihiei- man commanding the Saxon troops at Torgau, to maintain the most perfect neutrality, and to ad- mit neither of the contending parties \nthln the 1557 GERMANY, 1813, Napoleon's infatuation. GERMANY, 1813. walls of the fortress. Exasperated by this show of independence, Napoleon caused the following demands to be submitted to the King, allowing him only six hours to determine on their accept- ance or refusal : — 1. ' General Thielnian and the Saxon troops instantly evacuate Torgau, and form the 7th corps under General Iteynier ; and all the resources of the country to be at the dis- posal of the Emperor, in conformity with the principles of the Confederation of the Rhine. ' 3. ' The Saxon Cavalry ' — some regiments had ac- companied the King — 'return immediately to Dresden.' 3. ' The King declares, in a letter to the Emperor, that he is still a member of the Con- federation of the Rhine, and read}' to fulfil all the obligations which it imposes upon him. ' ' If these conditions are not immediately complied vpith,' says Napoleon in the instructions to his messenger, 'you will cause his Majesty to be in- formed that he is guilty of felony, has forfeited the Imperial protection, and has ceased to reign. ' . . . Frederick Augustus, finding himself threat- ened with the loss of his crown by an overbearing conqueror already in possession of his capital, . . . yielded in an evil hour to those imperious demands, and returned to Dresden. . . . Fortune appeared again to smile upon her spoiled and favoured child; and he resolved, on his part, to leave no expedient untried to make the most of her returning aid. The mediation of Austria, which from the first had been galling to his pride, became more hateful every day, as it gradually assumed the appearance of an armed interference, ready to enforce its demands by military means. . . . Tidings having arrived that the allied army, instead of continuing their retreat, had halted and taken post at Bautzen, he immediately resolved to strike a decisive blow in the field, as the best means of thwarting the pacific efforts of his father-in-law."— Lt. -Col. J. Mitchell, The Fall of Napoleon, bk. 3, ch. 1 (». 3). Also in: Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, 1789- 1815, ch. 75 (i\ 13). — Duchess d' Abrantes, Mem- oirs of Napoleon, i\ 3, ch. 44, A. D. 1813 (May— August).— Battle of Baut- zen. — Armistice of Pleswitz. — Accession of Austria and Great Britain to the Coalition against Napoleon. — " While the Emperor paused at Dresden, Ney made various demonstrations in the direction of Berlin, with the view of inducing the Allies to quit Bautzen ; but it soon became manifest that they had resolved to sacrifice the Prussian capital, if it were necessary, rather than forego their position. . . . Having replaced by ■wood-work some arches of the magnificent bridge over the Elbe at Dresden, which the Allies had blown up on their retreat, Napoleon now moved towards Bautzen, and came in sight of the posi- tion on the morning of the 31st of May, Its strength was obviously great. In their front was the river Spree: wooded hills supported tlieir right, and eminences well fortified their left. The action began with an attempt to turn tlieir right, but Barclay de Tolly anticipated this movement, and repelled it with such vigour that a whole column of 7,000 dispersed and fled into the hills of Bohemia for safety. The Emperor then determined to pass the Spree in front of the ■enemy, and they permitted him to do so, rather than come down from their position. He took up his quarters in the town of Bautzen, and his ■whole army bivouacked in presence of the Allies, The battle was resumed at daybreak on the 33d; when Ney on the right, and Oudinot on the left, attempted simultaneously to turn the flanks of the position ; while Soult and Napoleon himself directed charge after charge on the centre. Dur- ing four hours the struggle ■was maintained with unflinching obstinacy ; the wooded heights, where Blucher commanded, had been taken and retaken several times — the bloodshed on either side had been terrible — ere . . . the Allies perceived the necessity either of retiring, or of continuing the fight against superior numbers on disadvanta- geous ground. "They withdrew accordingly ; but still with all the deliberate coolness of a parade, halting at every favourable spot and renewing their cannonade. ' What,' exclaimed Napoleon, 'no results! not a gun! not a prisoner! — these people will not leave me so much as a nail.' During the whole day he urged the pursuit with impetuous rage, reproacliing even his chosen generals as 'creeping scoundrels,' and exposing his own person in the very hottest of the fire." His closest friend, Duroc, Grand Master of the Palace, was mortally wounded by his side, be- fore he gave up the pursuit. "The Allies, being strongly posted during most of the day, had suffered less than the French ; the latter had lost 15,000, the former 10,000 men. They con- tinued their retreat into Upper Silesia; and Buo- naparte advanced to Breslau, and released the garrison of Glogau. Meanwhile the Austrian, having watched these indecisive though bloody fields, once more renewed his offers of mediation. The sovereigns of Russia and Prussia expressed great willingness to accept it; and Napoleon also appears to have been sincerely desirous for the moment of bringing his disputes to a peace- ful termination. He agreed to an armistice [of six weeks], and in arranging Its conditions agreed to fall back out of Silesia; thus enabling the allied princes to reopen communications with Berlin. The lines of country to be occupied by the armies, respectively, during the truce, were at length settled, and it was signed on the 1st of June [at Poischwitz, though the negotiations were mostly carried on at Pleswitz, whence the Armistice is usualh' named]. The French Em- peror then returned to Dresden, and a general congress of diplomatists prepared to meet at Prague. England alone refused to send any rep- resentative to Prague, alleging that Buonaparte had as yet signified no disposition to recede from his pretensions on Spain, and that he had con- sented to the armistice with the sole view of gaining time for political intrigue and further military preparation. It may be doubted whether any of the allied powers who took part in the Congress did so with much hope that the disputes with Napoleon could find a peaceful end. . , , But it was of the utmost importance to gain time for the advance of Bernadotte; for the arrival of new reinforcements from Russia ; for the comple- tion of the Prussian organization ; and, above all, for determining the policy of Vienna, Metter- nich, the Austrian minister, repaired in person to Dresden, and while inferior diplomatists wasted time in endless discussions at Prague, one inter- view between him and Napoleon brought the whole question to a definite issue. The Emperor . . . assumed at once that Austria had no wish but to drive a good bargain for herself, and asked broadly, ' What is your price ? Will lUyria sat- isfy you ? I only wish you to be neutral — I can deal with these Russians and Prussians single- 1558 GERMANY, 1813. The new Coalition. GERMANY, 1813. handed. ' Metternlch stated plainly that the time in which Austria could be neutral was past ; that the situation of Europe at large must be consid- ered ; . . . that events had proved the impossi- bility of a steadfast peace unless the sovereigns of the Continent were restored to the ranii of in- dependence; in a word, tliat the Rlienish Con- federacy must be broken up ; tliat France must be contented with the boundary of the Rhine, and pretend no longer to maintain her usurped and unnatural influence in Germany. Napoleon replied by a gross personal insult: 'Come, Met- ternlch, ' said he, ' tell me honestly how much the English have given you to talie their part against me. ' The Austrian court at length sent a formal document, containing its ultimatum, the tenor of which Metternlch had sufficiently indi- cated in this conversation. Talleyrand and Fou- che, who had now arrived from Paris, urged the Emperor to accede to the proffered terms. They represented to him the madness of rousing all Europe to conspire for his destruction, and in- sinuated that the progress of discontent was rapid in France itself. Their arguments were backed by intelligence of the most disastrous character from Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1812- 1814]. . . . Napoleon was urged by his military as well as political advisers, to appreciate duly the crisis which his affairs had reached. ... He proceeded to insult both ministers and generals . . . and ended by announcing that he did not wish for any plans of theirs, but their service in the execution of his. Thus blinded by arro- gance and self-confidence, and incapable of weigh- ing any other considerations against what he considered as the essence of his personal glory, Napoleon refused to abate one iota of his preten- sions — until it was too late. Then, indeed, . . . he did show some symptoms of concession. A courier arrived at Prague with a note, in which he signified his willingness to accede to a consid- erable number of the Austrian stipulations. But this was on the 11th of August. The day pre- ceding was that on which, by the agreement, the armistice was to end. On that day Austria had to sign ah alliance, offensive and defensive, with Russia and Prussia. On the night between the 10th and 11th, rockets answering rockets, from height to heiglit along the frontiers of Bohemia and Silesia, had announced to all the armies of the Allies this accession of strength, and the im- mediate recommencement of hostilities." — J. G. Lockhart, Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, ch. 33- 33.^" On the 14th of June Great Britain had be- come a party to the treaty concluded between Russia and Prussia. She had promised assis- tance in this great struggle; but no aid could have been more effectual than that which she was rendering in the Peninsula." — C. Knight, Popular Hint, of Eng. , ch. 33 («. 7). Also in : G. R. Gleig, The Leipsic Campaign, eh. 7-16. — A. Thiers, Hist, of tlie Consulate and the Empire, bk. 48-49 (v. 4). — Prince Metternich, Memoirs, 1773-1815, bk. 1, ch. 8 (v. 1).— J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, pt. 7, ch. ir-5 (v. 3). — J. Philippart, Northern Campaigns, 1813- 1813. V. 3. A. D. 1813 (August).— Great battle and vic- tory of Napoleon at Dresden. — French defeats at Kulm, Gross-Beeren and the Katzbach. — "Dresden, during the armistice, had been con- verted by Napoleon into such a place of strength that it might be called one citadel. All the trees in Uie neighbourhood, as well as those which had formed the ornament of the public gardens and walks of that beautiful capital, were cut down and converted into abattis and palisades; re- doubts, field-works, and fosses had been con- structed. The chain of fortresses garrisoned by French troops secured to Napoleon the rich val- ley of the Elbe. Hamburg, Dantzic, and many strong places on the Oder and Vistula were in his possession. . . . His army assembled at the seat of war amounted to nearly 300,000 men, including the Bavarian reserve of 35,000 under General Wrede, and he had greatly increased his cavalry. This powerful force was divided into eleven army corps, commanded by Vandamme, Victor, Bertrand, Ney, Lauriston, Marmont, Reynier, Poniatowski, Macdonald, Oudiuot, and St. Cyr. Murat, who, roused by the news of the victories of Lutzen and Bautzen, had left his capital, was made commander-in-chief of all the cavalry. . . . Davoust held Hamburg with 20,000 men. Au- gereau with 24, 000 occupietl Bavaria. Tlie armies of the allies were computed at nearly 400,000 men, including the divisions destined to invade Italy. Those ready for action at the seat of war in Germany were divided into three great masses, — the army of Bohemia, consisting mainly of Austrians commanded by Prince Schwartzen- burg ; the army of Silesia, commanded by Blu- cher ; and the troops under the command of Ber- nadotte, stationed near Berlin. These immense hosts were strong la cavalry and artillery, and in discipline and experience far exceeded the French soldiers, who were nearly all young conscripts. Two Frenchmen of eminence were leaders in the ranks of the enemies of France, — Bernadotte and Moreau; Jomini, late chief of the engineer department in Napoleon's army, was a Swiss. These three men, well instructed by the great master of the art of war, directed the coimsels of the allied Sovereigns and taught them how to conquer. Bernadotte pointed out that Napoleon lay in Dresden with his guard of five-and-twenty thousand men, while his marshals were stationed in various strong positions on the frontiers of Saxony. The moment a French corps d'armee was attacked Napoleon would spring from his central point upon the flank of the assailants, and as such a blow would be irresistible he would thus beat the allied armies in detail. To obviate this danger Bernadotte recommended that the first general who attacked a French division and brought Napoleon into the field should retreat, luring the Emperor onward in pursuit, when the other bodies of allied troops, simultaneously closing upon his rear, should surround him and cut him off from his base. This plan was fol- lowed: Blucher advanced from Silesia, menacing the armies of Macdonald and Ney, and Napoleon, with the activity expected, issued from Dresden on the 15th of August, rapidly reached the point of danger, and assumed the offensive. But he was unable to bring the Prussian general to a de- cisive action, for Blucher, continuing to retreat before him, the pursuit was only arrested by an estafette reporting on the 23rd that the main body of the allies threatened Dresden. On the 25th, at 4 in the afternoon, 200,000 allied troops led by Schwartzenburg appeared before that city. St. Cyr, who had been left to observe the passes of the Bohemian mountains with 20,000 men, re- treated before the irresistible torrent and threw himself into the Saxon capital, which he prepared 1559 GERMANY, 1813. Prench Victory and Defeats. GERMANY, 1813. to defend with his own forces and the garrison left by the Emperor. It was a service of the last importance. With Dresden Napoleon would lose liis recruiting depot and supplies of every kind. . . . The Austrian commander-in-chief deferred the attack till the following day, replying to the expostulations of Jomini that Napoleon was en- gaged in the Silesian passes. Early on the morn- ing of the 36th the allies advanced to the assault in six columns, under cover of a tremendous ar- tillery tire. They carried one great redoubt, then another, and closed with the defenders of the city at every point, shells and balls falling thick on the houses, many of which were on fire. St. Cyr conducted the defence with heroism ; but be- fore midday a surrender was talked of. . . . Suddenly, from the opposite bank of the Elbe columns of soldiers were seen hastening towards the city. They pressed across the bridges, swept through the streets, and with loud shouts de- manded to be led into battle, although they had made forced marches from the frontiers of Silesia. Napoleon, with the Old Guard and cuirassiers, was in the midst of them. His enemies had cal- culated on only half his energy and rapidity, and had forgotten that he could return as quickly as he left. The Prussians had penetrated the Grosse Garten on the French left, and so close was the Russian fire that Witgenstein's guns enfiladed the road by which Napoleon had to pass ; consequent- ly, to reach the city in safety, he was compelled to dismount at the most exposed part, and, accord- ing to Baron Odeleben (one of his aides-de-camp), creep along on his hands and knees (ventre &, terre). Napoleon halted at the palace to reassure the King of Saxony, and then joined his troops who were already at the gates. Sallies were made by Ney and Mortier under his direction. The astonished assailants were driven back. The Young Guard recaptured the redoubts, and the French army deployed on the plateau lately in possession of their enemies. . . . The fury of the fight gradually slackened, and the armies took up their positions for the night. The French wings bivouacked to the right and left of the city, which itself formed Napoleon's centre. The allies were ranged in a semicircle cresting the heights. . . . They had not greatly the advan- tage in numbers, for Klenau's division never came up ; and Napoleon, now that Victor and Marraont's corps had arrived, concentrated nearly 200,000 men. . . . The next day broke in a tem- pest of wind and rain. At six o'clock Napoleon was on horseback, and ordered his columns to advance. Their order of battle has been aptly compared to 'a fan when it expands.' Their position could scarcely have been worse. . . . Knowing that in case of disaster retreat would be almost an impossibility, Napoleon began an attack on both flanks of the allied army, certain that their defeat would demoralize the centre, which he could overwhelm by a simultaneous concentric attack, supported by the fire of 100 guns. The stormy weather which concealed their movements favoured them; and Murat turning and breaking the Austrian left, and Ney completely rolling up the Austrian right, the re- sult was a decisive victory. By three in the afternoon of the 27th the battle was concluded, and the allies were in full retreat, pursued by the French. The roads to Bohemia and those to the south were barred by Murat's and Van- damme's corps, and tie allied Sovereigns were obliged to take such country paths and byways as they could find — which had been rendered almost impassable by the heavy rain. They lost 25,000 prisoners, 40 standards, 60 pieces of can- non, and many waggons. The killed and wound- ed amounted on each side to seven or eight thou- sand. The first cannon-shot fired by the guard under the direction of Napoleon mortally wound- ed Moreau while talking to the Emperor Alexan- der. . . . The French left wing, composed of the three corps of Vandamme, St. Cyr, and Mar- mont, were ordered to march by their left along the Pirna road in pursuit of the foe, who was re- treating into Bohemia in three columns, and had traversed the gorges of the Hartz Mountains in safety, though much baggage, several ammuni- tion waggons, and 2,000 prisoners, fell into the hands of the French. The Russians, under Os- termann, halted on the plain of Culm [or Kulm] for the arrival of Kleist's Prussians; the Austri- ans hurried along the Prague route. Vandamme marched boldly on, neglecting even the precau- tion of guarding the defile of Peterswald in his rear. Trusting to the rapid advance of the other French corps, he was lured on by the hope of capturing the allied Sovereigns in their head- quarters at Toplitz. Barclay de Tolly, having executed a rapid detour from left to right, brought the bulk of his Russian forces to bear oa Vandamme, who, on reaching Culm, was attacked in front and rear [August 29-30], surprised and taken, losing the whole of his artillery and be- tween 7,000 and 8,000 prisoners; the rest of his corps escaped and rejoined the army. This dis- aster totally deranged Napoleon's plans, which would have led him to follow up the pursuit to- wards Bohemia in person. Oudiuot was ordered to march against Billow's corps at Berlin and the Swedes commanded by Bernadotte, taking with him the divisions of Bertraud and Reynier — a force of 80,000 men. Reynier, who marched In advance, fell in with the allies at Gross-Beeren, attacked them precipitately and suffered severely, his division, chiefly composed of Saxons, taking flight. Oudinot also sustained considerable losses, and retreated to Torgau on the Elbe. Girard, sallying out of Magdeburg with 5,000 or 6,006 men, was defeated near Leibnitz, with the loss of 1,000 men, and some cannon and baggage. Macdonald encountered Blucher in the plains be- tween Wahlstadt and the Katzbach under disad- vantageous circumstances [August 26], and was obliged to retire in disorder." — R. H. Home, Hist, of Napoleon, ch. 37. — " The great battle of the Katzbach, the counterpart to that of Hohen- linden, [was] one of the most glorious ever gained in the annals of European fame. Its trophies were immense. . . . Eighteen thousand prison- ers, 103 pieces of cannon, and 230 caissons, be- sides 7,000 killed and wounded, presented a total loss to the French of 25,000 men."— Sir A. Ali- son, Hist, of Europe, ch. 80, sect. 68 {v. 17).— "Of the battle of Kulm it is not too much to say that it was the most critical in the whole war of Ger- man liberation. The fate of the coalition was determined absolutely by its results. Had Van- damme been strong enough to keep his hold of Bohemia, and to block up ^rom them the mouths of the passes, the allied columns, forced back into the exhausted mountain district through which they were retreating, must have perished for lack of food, or dissolved themselves." — G. R. Gleig, The Leipzig Campaign, ch. 27. 1560 GERMANY, 1813. The Allies at Leipsic. GERMANY, 1813. Also in : Baron Jomini, Life of Napoleon, eh. 20 (b. 4). — Major C. Adams, Oreat Campaigns in Europe, 1796 to 1870, ch. 5. A. D. 1813 (September— October). — French reverse at Dennewitz. — Napoleon's evacuation of Dresden. — Allied concentration at Leipsic. — Preparations for the decisive battle. — "The [allied] Armj' of the North had been nearly idle since the battle of Grossbeeren. The Prussian generals were extremely indignant against Berna- dotte, whose slowness and inaction were intoler- able to them. It took them, under his orders, a fortnight to advance as far as a good footman could march in a day. They then unexpectedly met a new French army advancing against them from a fortified camp at Wittenberg. Napoleon had now assigned to Marshal Ney — ■' the bravest of the brave ' — the work of beating ' the Cossack hordes and the poor militia,' and taking Berlin. Under him were Oudiuot, Regnier, Bertrand, and Arrighi, with 70,000 men. On September 6 Tauenzien met their superior forces at Jilterbogk, but sustained himself valiantly through a peril- ous fight. Bernadotte was but two hours' march away, but as usual disregarded Billow's request to bring aid. But Billow himself brought up his corps on the right, and took the brunt of the battle, extending it through the villages south of Jilterbogk, of which Dennewitz was the centre. The Prussians took these villages by storm, and when evening came their victory was complete, though Bernadotte had not stretched out a hand to help them. . . . Billow bore the name of Dennewitz afterward in honor of his victory. Ney reported to his master that he was entirely defeated. Napoleon unwisely ascribed his defeat entirely to the Saxons, who fought well that day for him, but for the last time. By his reproaches he entirely alienated the people froni him. The French loss in this battle was 10,000 killed and •wounded, and 10,000 prisoners, besides 80 guns. The Prussians lost in killed and wounded more than 5,000. Thus five victories had been won by the Allies in a fortnight, compensating fully for the loss of the battle of Dresden. The way to the Elbe lay open to the Army of the North. But Bernadotte continued to move with extreme slowness. Billow and Tauenzien seriously pro- posed to Blucher to leave the Swedish prince, whom they openly denounced as a traitor. Blii- cher approached the Elbe across the Lausitz from Bohemia, and it would have been easy to cross the river and unite the two armies, threatening Napoleon's rear, and making Dresden untenable for him. Napoleon advanced in vain against Blucher to Bausitz. The Prussian general wisely avoided a battle. Then the emperor turned against the Army of Bohemia, but it was too strong in its position in the valley of Teplitz, with the mountains in its rear, to be attacked. Then again he moved toward Bliicher, but again failed to bring about an action. At this time public opinion throughout Europe was undergo- ing a rapid change, and Napoleon's name was losing its magic. The near prospect of his fall made the nations he had oppressed eager and im- patient for it, and his German allies and subjects lost all regard and hgpe for his cause. On Oc- tober 8 the Bavarian plenipotentiary. General Wrede, concluded a treaty with Austria at Ried, by the terms of which Bavaria left Napoleon and joined the allies. This important defection, though it had been for some weeks expected, was felt by the French emperor as a severe blow to his prospects. Napoleon's circle of movement around Dresden began to be narrowed. The Russian reserves under Beuningsen, 57, 000 strong, were also advancing through Silesia toward Bo- hemia. Blucher was therefore not needed in Bohemia, and he pressed forward vigorously to cross the Elbe. His army advanced along the right bank of the Black Elster to its mouth above Wittenberg. On the opposite bank of the Elbe, in the bend of the stream, stands the village of AVartenburg, and just at the bend Bliicher built two bridges of boats without opposition. On October 3 York's corps crossed the river. But now on the west side, among the thickets and swamps before the village, arose a furious strug- gle with a body of 20,000 French, Italians, and Germans of the Rhine League under Bertrand. York displayed eminent patience, coolness, and judgment, and won a decided victor}' out of a great danger. Bernadotte, though with much hesitation, also crossed the Elbe at the mouth of the Mulde, and the army of the North and of Silesia were thus united in Napoleon's rear. It was now evident that the successes of these armies had brought the French into extreme danger, and the allied sovereigns resolved upon a con- certed attack. Leipsic was designated as the point at which the armies should combine. Na- poleon could no longer hold Dresden, lest he should be cut off from France by a vastly su- perior force. The partisan corps of the allies were also growing bolder and more active far in Na- poleon's rear, and on October 1 Czernichefl drove Jerome out of Cassel and proclaimed the king- dom of Westphalia dissolved. This was the work of a handful of Cossacks, without infantry and artillery ; but though Jerome soon returned, the moral effect of this sudden and easy over- throw of one of Napoleon's military kingdoms was immense. On October 7 Napoleon left Dres- den, and marched to the Mulde. Bliicher's forces were arrayed along both sides of this stream, below Dliben. But he quietly and successfully retired, on perceiving Napoleon's purpose to at- tack him, and moved westward to the Saale, in order to draw after him Bernadotte and the Northern army. The plan was successful, and the united armies took up a position behind the Saale, extending from Merseburg to Alsleben, Bernadotte occupying the. northern end of the line next to the Elbe. Napoleon, disappointed in his first effort, now formed a plan whose bold- ness astonished both friend and foe. He resolved to cross the Elbe, to seize Berlin and the Marches, now uncovered, and thus, supported by his for- tresses of Jlagdeburg, Stettin, Dantzic, and Ham- burg, where he still had bodies of troops and magazines, to give the war an entirely new aspect. But the murmurs of his worn-out troops, and even of his generals, compelled him to aban- don this plan, which was desperate, but might have been effectual. The suggestion of it terri- fied Bernadotte, whose province of Lower Pome- rania would be threatened, and he would have withdrawn in headlong haste across the Elbe had not Bliicher persisted in detaining him. Napo- leon now resolved to march against the Bohe- mian army at Leipsic. On October 14, on ap- proaching the city from the north, he heard cannon-shots on the opposite side. It was the advanced guard of the main army, which was descending from the Erz-Gebirge range, after a 1561 GERMANY, 1813. Battle of the Nations. GERMANY, 1813. sharp but indecisive cavalry battle with Murat at the village of Liebertwolkwitz, south of Dres- den. In the broad, thickly settled plains around Leipsic, the armies of Europe now assembled for the tinal and decisive conflict. Napoleon's com- mand included Portuguese, Spaniards, Neapoli- tans, and large contingents of Germans from the Rhine League, as well as the flower of the French youth; while the allies brought against him Cossacks and Calmucks, Swedes and Magyars, besides all the resources of Prussian patriotism and Austrian discipline. Never since the awful struggle at Chalons, which saved Western civili- zation from Attila, liad there been a strife so well deserving the name of ' the battle of the nations. ' West of the city of Leipsic runs the Pleisse, and flows into the Elster on the northwest side. Above their junction, the two streams run for some distance near one another, inclosing a sharp angle of swampy land. The great highway to Lindenau from Leipsic crosses the Elster, and then runs southwesterly to Llltzen and AYeissen- fels. South of the city and east of the Pleisse lie a number of villages, of which Wachau, Liebertwolkwitz, and Probstlieida, nearer the city, were important points during the battle. The little river Partha approaches the city on the cast, and then runs north, reaching the Elster at Gohlis. Napoleon occupied the villages north, east and south of the city, in a small circle around it." — C. T. Lewis, Hist, of Oermany, ch. 30, sect. 7-11. Also w: E. Baines, Sist. of tlie Wars of the French Hev. , l>k. 4, ch. 33 {v. 3). A. D. 1813 (October).— " The Battle of the Nations." — "Tlie town of Leipsic has four sides and four gates. . . . On the south is the rising ground called the Swedish Camp, and another called the Sheep-walk, bordering on the banks of the Pleisse. To this quarter the Grand Army of the Allies was seen advancing on the 15th of October. Buonaparte made his arrangements accordingly. Bertrand and Poniatowski defend- ed Lindenau and the east side of the city, by which the French must retreat. Augereau was posted farther to the left, on the elevated plain of Wachau, and on the south, Victor, Lauriston, and Macdonald confronted the advance of the Allies with the Imperial Guai-ds placed as a reserve. On the north, Marmout was placed between Moeckcrn and Euterist, to make head against Blucher, should he arrive in time to take part in the battle. On the opposite quarter, the sentinels of the two armies were within musket- shot of each other, when evening fell. . . . The number of men who engaged the next morning was estimated at 136,000 French, and 330,000 on the part of the Allies. . . . Napoleon remained all night in the rear of his own Guards, behind the central position, facing a village called Gossa, occupied by the Austrians. At day- break on the 16tli of October the battle began. The French position was assailed along all the southern front with the greatest fury. . . . The Allies having made si.\ desperate attempts, . . . all of them unsuccessful, Napoleon in turn as- sumed the offensive. . . . This was about noon. The village of Gossa was carried by the bayonet. Macdonald made himself master of the Swedish Camp ; and the eminence called the Sheep-walk was near being taken in the same maimer. The impetuosity of the French had fairly broken through the centre of the Allies, and Napoleon sent the tidings of his success to the King of Saxony, who ordered all the bells in the city tO' be rung. . . . The King of Naples, with Latour- Maubo'irg aud Kellermann, poured through the gap in 'he enemy's centre at the head of the whole body of cavalry, and thundered forward as far as Magdeburg, a village in the rear of the Allies, bearing down General Rayefskoi with the Grena- diers of the Russian reserve. At this moment, while the French were disordered by their own success, Alexander, who was ])resent, ordered forward the Cossacks of his Guard, who, with their long lances, bore back the dense body of cavalry that had so nearly carried the day. Meantime, as had been apprehended, Blucher arrived before the city, and suddenly came into action- with Marmont, being three times his numbers. He in consequence obtained great and decided advantages; and before night-fall had taken the village of Mceckern, together with 30 pieces of artillery and 3,000 prisoners. But on the soutli side the contest continued doubtful. Gossa was still disputed. . . . Gen- eral Mehrfeldt fell into the hands of the French. The battle raged till night-fall, when it ceased by mutual consent. . . . The armies slept on the ground they had occupied during the day. The French on the southern side had not relin- quished one foot of their original position, though attacked by such superior numbers. Marmont had indeed been forced back by Blu- cher, and com]3elled to crowd his line of defence- nearer the walls of Leipsic. Thus pressed on all sides with doubtful issues, Buonaparte availed himself of the capture of General Mehrfeldt tO' demand an armistice and to signify his accept- ance of the terms proposed by the Allies, but which were now found to be too moderate. . . . Napoleon received no answer till his troops had recrossed the Rhine ; and the reason assigned is, that the Allies had pledged themselves solemnly to each other to enter into no treaty with him 'while a single individual of the French army remained in Germany.' . . . The 17th was spent in preparations on both sides, without any actual hostilities. At eight o'clock on the morning of the 18th they were renewed with tenfold fury. Napoleon had considerably contracted his cir- cuit of defence, and the French were posted on an inner line, nearer to Leipsic, of which Probtsheyda was the central point. . . . Bar- clay, Wittgenstein, and Kleist advanced on Probtsheyda, where they were opposed by Murat, Victor, Augereau, aud Lauriston, under the eye of Napoleon himself. On the left Mac- donald had drawn back his division to a village called Stoetteritz. Along this whole line the contest was maintained furiously on both sides; nor could the terrified spectators, from the walls and steeples of Leipsic, perceive that it either receded or advanced. About two o'clock the Allies forced their way . . . into Probtsheyda; the camp-followers began to fly ; the tumult was excessive. Napoleon . . . placed the reserve of the Old Guard in order, led tnem in person to recover the village, and saw them force their entrance ere he withdrew to the eminence from whence he watched the battle. . . . The Allies, at length, felt themselves obliged to desist from' the murderous attacks on the villages wliich cost them so dear; and, withdrawing their troops, kept up a dreadful fire with their artil- lery. The French replied with equal spirit^ 1562 GERMANY, 1813. Battle of the Nations. GERMANY, 1813. though they had fewer guns; and, besides, their ammunition was falling short. Still, however. Napoleon completely maintained the day on the south of Leipsic, where he commanded in per- son. On the northern side, the yet greater su- periority of numbers placed Ney in a precarious situation; and, pressed hard both by Blucher and the Crown-Prince, he was compelled to draw nearer the town, and had made a stand on an eminence called Heiterblick, when on a sud- den the Saxons, who were stationed in that part of the field, deserted from the French and went over to the enemy. In consequence of this un- expected disaster, Ney was unable any longer to defend himself. It was in vain that Buonaparte dispatched his reserves of cavalry to fill up the chasm that had been made ; and Ney drew up the remainder of his forces close under the walls of Leipsic. The battle once more ceased at all points. . . Although the French army had thus kept its ground up to the last moment on these two days, yet there was no prospect of their being able to hold out much longer at Leipsic. . . . All things counselled a retreat, which was destined (like the rest of late) to be unfortunate. . . . The retreat was commenced in the night-time; and Napoleon spent a third harassing night in giving the necessary orders for the march. He appointed Macdonald and Ponia- towski ... to defend the rear. ... A tempo- rary bridge which had been erected had given way, and the old bridge on the road to Linde- nau was the only one that remained for the pas- sage of the whole French army. But the de- fence of the suburbs had been so gallant and obstinate that time was allowed for this purpose. At length the rear- guard itself was about to retreat, when, as they approached the banks of the river, the bridge blew up by the mistake of a sergeant of a company of sappers who . . . set fire to the mine of which he had charge before the proper moment. This catastrophe effectually barred the escape of all those who still remained on the Leipsic side of the river, except a few who succeeded in swimming across, among whom was Marshal Macdonald. Ponia- towski . . . was drowned in making the same attempt. In him, it might be said, perished the last of the Poles. About 25,000 French were made prisoners of war, with a great quan- tity of artillery and baggage." — W. Hazlitt, Life of Napoleon, ch. 50 (». 6). — "The battle of Leip- sic was over. Already had the allied sovereigns entered the town, and forcing, not without dif- ficulty, their way through the crowd, passed on to the market-place. Here, the house in which the King of Saxony had lodged was at once made known to them by the appearance of the Saxon troops whom Napoleon had left to guard their master. . . . Moreover, the King himself . . . stood bare-headed on the steps of the stairs. But the Emperor of Russia, who appears at once to have assumed the chief direction of affairs, took no notice of the suppliants. . . . The battle of Leip- sic constitutes one of those great hinges on which the fortunes of the world may be said from time to time to turn. The importance of its political consequence cannot be overestimated. ... As a great military operation, the one feature which forces itself prominently upon our notice is the eraorraous extent of the means employed on both sides to accomplish an end. Never since the days when Persia poured her millions into Greece had armies so numerous been marshalled against each other. Nor does history tell of trains of ar- tillery so vast having been at any time brought into action with more murderous effect. . . . About 1,300 pieces, on the one side, were an- swered, during two days, by little short of 1,000 on the other. . . . We look in vain for any mani- festations of genius or military skill, either in the combinations which rendered the battle of Leip- sic inevitable, or in the arrangements according to which the attack and defence of the field were conducted. . . . It was the triumph, not of mili- tary skill, but of numbers. " — G. R. Gleig, The Leipsic Campaign, ch. 41. — "No more here than at Moscow must we seek in the failure of the leader's, talents the cause of such deplorable results, — for he was never more fruitful in resource, more bold, more resolute, nor more a soldier, — but in the illusions of pride, in the wish to regain at a blow an immense fortune which he had lost, in the difficulty of acknowledging to himself his de- feat in time, in a word, in all those errors which we may discern in miniature and caricature in an ordinary gambler, who madly risks riches ac- quired by folly ; errors which are found on a large and terrible scale in this gigantic gambler, who plays with human blood as others play Avith money. As gamblers lose their fortunes twice, — once from not knowing where to stop, and a second time from wishing, to restore it at a single cast, — so Napoleon endangered his at Moscow by wishing to make it exorbitantly large, and in the Dresden campaign by seeking to restore it in its full extent. The cause was always the same, the alteration not in the genius, but in the character, by the deteriorating influence of unlimited power and success." — A. Thiers, Hist, of the Consulate and the Empire, bk. 50 (v. 4). Also in : Duke de Rovigo, Memoirs, v. 3, pt. 3, ch. 17. — J. C. Ropes, The First Napoleon. — Baron de Marbot, Ifemoirs, v. 3, ch. 38-39. A. D. 1813 (October — December). — Retreat of Napoleon beyond the Rhine. — Battle of Hanau. — Fall of the kingdom of Westphalia. — Surrender of French garrisons and forces. — Liberation achieved. — "Blucher, withLangeron and Sacken, moved in pursuit of the French army, which, disorganised and dejected, was wend- ing its way towards the Rhine. At the passage of the Unstrutt, at Freyberg, 1,000 prisoners and 18 guns were captured by the Prussian hussars; but on the 23d the French reached Erfurth, the citadels and magazines of which afforded them at once security and relief from their privations. Here Napoleon halted two days, employed in re- organising his army, the thirteen corps of which were now formed into six, commanded by Victor, Ney, Bertrand, Augereau, Marmont, and Mac- donald, and amounting in all to less than 90,000 men ; while twice that number were left block- aded in the fortresses on the Elbe, the Oder, and the Vistula. On the 2oth, after parting for the last time with Murat, who here quitted him and re- turned to Naples, he resumed his march, retreat- ing with such rapidity through the Thuringian forest, that the Cossacks alone of the pursuing army could keep up with the retiring columns — while the men dropped, exhausted by fatigue and hunger, or deserted their ranks by hundreds ; so that when the fugitive host approached the Maine, not more than 50,000 remained effective round their colours — 10,000 had fallen or been made prisoners, and at least 30,000 were straggling 15G3 GERJIANY, 1813. NapoleoTi's retreat. GERMANY, 1814. in the rear. But here fresh dangers awaited thera. After the treaty of the 8th October, by which Bavaria had acceded to the grand alhance, an Austro-Bavarian force under Jfarshal Wrede had moved in the direction of Frankfort, and was posted, to the number of 45,000 men, in the oak forest near Hanau across the great road to May- ence, and blocking up entirely the French line of retreat. The battle commenced at 11 A. M. on the 30th; but the French van, under Victor and Macdonald, after fighting its way through the forest, was arrested, when attempting to issue from its skirts, by the concentric fire of 70 pieces of cannon, and for four hours the combat con- tinued, till the arrival of the guards and main body changed the aspect of affairs. Under cover of the terrible fire of Drouot's artillery, Sebasti- ani and Nansouty charged with the cavalry of the guard, and overthrew everything opposed to them, and Wrede at length drew off his shattered army behind the Kinzig. Hanau was bombarded and taken, and Mortier and Marmont, with the rear divisions, cut their way through on the fol- lowing day, with considerable loss to their op- ponents. The total losses of the Allies amounted to 10,000 men, of whom 4,000 were prisoners; and the victory threw a parting ray of glory over the long career of the revolutionary arms in Ger- many. On the 2d of November the French reached Ma\'ence, and Napoleon, after remaining there six days to collect tlie remains of his army, set out for Paris, where he arrived on the 9th; and thus the French eagles bade a final adieu to the German plains. In the mean time, the Al- lied troops, following closely on the footsteps of the retreating French, poured in prodigious strength down the valley of the Jlaine. Ou the 5th of November the Emperor Alexander entered Frankfort in triumph, at the head of 20,000 horse ; and on the 9th the fortified post of Hochheim, in advance of the tete-du-pont of Mayence at Cas- sel, was stormed by Giulay. From the heights beyond the town the victorious armies of Germany beheld the winding stream of the Rhine ; a shout of enthusiasm ran from rank to rank as they saw the mighty river of the Fatherland, which their arms had liberated ; those in the rear hurried to the front, and soon a hundred thousand voices joined in the cheers which told the world that the war of independence was ended and Germany delivered. Nothing now remained but to reap the fruits of this mighty victory ; yet so vast was the ruin that even this was a task of time and difficulty. The rickety kingdom of Westphalia fell at once, never more to rise ; the revolutionary d_ynasty in Berg followed its fate ; and the authority of the King of Britain was re-established by acclamation in Hanover, at the first appearance of Bernadotte and Benningsen. The reduction of Davoust, who had been left in Hamburg with 25,000 French and 10,000 Danes, was an undertaking of more dilflculty ; and against him Walmodeu and Ber- nadotte moved with 40,000 men. The French marshal had taken up a position ou the Stecknitz; but, fearful of being cut off from Hamburg, he retired behind the Bille on the advance of the Allies, separating himself from the Danes, who were compelled to capitulate. The operations of the Crown-Prince against Denmark, the ancient rival of Sweden, were now pushed with a vigour and activity strongly contrasting with his luke- warmness in the general campaign ; and the court of Copenhagen, seeing its dominions on the point of being overrun, signed an armistice on the 15th December, on which was soon after based a per- manent treaty [of Kiel — see .Scandinavian Stated : A. D. 1S13-1814]. . . . When Napoleon (Oct. 7) marched northwards from Dresden, he had left St. Cyr in that city with 30,000 men, op- posed only by a newly-raised Russian corps under Tolstoi , which St. Cyr, by a sudden attack, routed with the loss of 3,000 men and 10 guns. But no sooner was the battle of Leipsic decided, than Dresden was again blockaded by 50.000 men un- der Kleuau and Tolstoi ; and St. Cyr, who was encumbered with a vast number of sick and wounded, and was almost without jjrovisions, was obliged, after a fruitless sortie on the 6th November, to surrender on the 11th, on condition of being sent with his troops to France. The capitulation, however, was disallowed by Schwart- zenberg, and the whole were made prisoners of war — a proceeding which the French, not with- out some justice, declaim against as a gross breach of faith — and thus no less than 33 generals, 1,795 officers, and 33,000 rank and file, with 240 pieces of cannon, fell into the power of the Allies. The fall of Dresden was soon followed by that of the other fortresses on the Vistula and the Oder. Stettin, with 8,000 men and 350 guns, surrendered on the 21st November; and Torgau, which .on tained the militarj' hospitals and reserve parks of artillery left by the grand army on its retreat from the Elbe, yielded at discretion to Tauenzein (Dec. 26), after a siege of two months. But such was the dreadful state of the garrison, from the rav- ages of typhus fever, that the Allies dared not enter this great pest-house till the 10th January; and the terrible epidemic which issued from its walls made the circuit, during the four following years, of every country in Europe. Dantzic, with its motley garrison of 35,000 men, had been blockaded ever since the Moscow retreat ; but the blockading corps, which was not of greater strength, could not confine the French within the walls; and Rapp made several sorties in force during the spring and summer, by which he pro- cured abundance of provisions. It was not till after the termination of the armistice of Pleswitz that the siege was commenced in form ; and after sustaining a severe bombardment, Rapp, deprived of all hope by the battle of Leipsic, capitulated (Nov. 29) with his garrison, now reduced by the sword, sickness, and desertion, to 16,000 men. Zamosc, with 3,000 men, surrendered on the 22d December, and Modlin, with 1,300, on the 25th; and at the close of the year, France retained be- yond the Rhine onl}' Hamburg, Magdeburg, and Wittenberg, on the Elbe ; Custrin and Glogau on the Oder; and the citadels of Erfurth and Wiirtz- burg, which held out after the capitulation of the towns." — Epitome of Alison's Hist, of Europe, sect. 737-742 (ch. 83, v. 17, in complete work). — "The princes of the Confederation of the Rhine, with the exception of the captive King of Sax- ony, and one or two minor princes, deserted Na- poleon, and entered into treaties with the Allies." — T. H. Dyer, Hist, of Modern Europe, ■». 4, p. 538. Also in: M. Bourrienne, Private Memoirs of Napoleon, v. 4, ch. 16. — T/ie Tear of Liberation: Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh. — J. Philip- part, Campaign in Oermany and France, 1813, V. 1, ;;/). 230-278. A. D. 1814.— The Allies in France and in possession of Paris. — Fall of Napoleon. Se« 1564 GERMANY, 1814. Germanic Confederation. GERMANY, 1814-1820. Prance; A. D. 1814 (January — March), and (March— April). A. D. 1814 (May). — Readjustment of French boundaries by the Treaty of Paris. See France; A. D. 1814 (April — June). A. D. 1814-1815. — The Congress of Vienna. — Its territorial and political readjustments. See Vienna, The Congress op. A. D. 1814-182Q. — Reconstruction of Ger- many. — The Germanic Confederation and its constitution. — "Germany was now utterly dis- integrated. The Holy Roman Empire bad ceased to exist; the Confederation of the Rhine had fol- lowed it ; and from the Black Forest to the Rus- sian frontier there was nothing but angry ambi- tions, vengeances, and fears. If there was ever to be peace again in all these wide regions, it was clearly necessary to create something new. What was to be created was a far more difficult ques- tion; but already, on the 30th of May 1814, the powers had come to some sort of understanding, if not with regard to the means to be pursued, at least with regard to the end to be attained. In the Treaty of Paris we find these words : ' Les etats de I'Allemagne seront iudependants et unis par un lien federatif.' But how was this to bo effected? There were some who wished the Holy Roman Empire to be restored. ... Of course neither Prussia, Bavaria, nor Wurtemberg, could look kindly upon a plan so obviously unfavour- able to them ; but not even Austria really wished it, and indeed it had few powerful friends. Then there was a project of a North and South Ger- many, with the Maine for boundary; but this was very much the reverse of acceptable to the minor princes, who had no idea of being grouped like so many satellites, some around Austria and some around Prussia. Next came a plan of re- construction by circles, the effect of which would have been to have thrown all the power of Ger- many into the hands of a few of the larger states. To this all the smaller independent states were bitterly opposed, and it broke down, although supported by the great authority of Stein, as well as by Gagern. If Germany had been in a later phase of political development, public opinion would perhaps have forced the sovereigns to con- sent to the formation of a really united Fatherland with a powerful executive and a national parlia- ment — but the time for that had not arrived. What was the opposition of a few hundred clear- sighted men with their few thousand followers, that it should prevail over the masters of so many legions? What these potentates cared most about were their sovereign rights, and the dream of German unity was very readily sacrificed to the determination of each of them to be, as far as he possibly could, absolute master in his own do- minions. Therefore it was that it soon became evident that the results of the deliberation on the future of Germany would be, not a federative state, but a confederation of states — a Staaten- Bund, not a Bundes-Staat. There is no doubt, however, that much mischief might have been avoided if all the stronger powers had worked conscientiously together to give this Staaten- Bund as national a character as possible. . . . Prussia was really honestly desirous to effect something of this kind, and Stein, Hardenberg, William von Humboldt, Count Miinster, and other statesmen, laboured hard to bring it about. Austria, on the other hand, aided by Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and Baden; did all she could to oppose such projects. Things would per- liaps have been settled better than they ulti- mately were, if the return of Napoleon from Elba had not frightened all Europe from its pro- priety, and turned the attention of the sovereigns towards warlike preparations. . . . The docu- ment by which the Germanic Confederation is created is of so much importance that we may say a word about the various stages through which it passed. First, then, it appears as a paper drawn up by Stein in March 1814, and submitted to Hardenberg, Count Miinster, and the Emperor Alexander. Next, in the month of Septemlser, it took the form of an official plan, handed by Hardenberg to Metternich, and con- sisting of forty-one articles. This plan contem- plated the creation of a confederation which should have the character rather of a Bundes-Staat than of a Staaten-Bund ; but it went to pieces in con- sequence of the difficulties which we have noticed above, and out of it, and of ten other official pro- posals, twelve articles were sublimated by the rival chemistry of Hardenberg and Metternich. Upon these twelve articles the representatives of Austria, Prussia, Hanover, and Wurtemberg, de- liberated. Their sittings were cut short partly by the ominous appearance which was presented In the autumn of 1814 by the Saxon and Polish questions, and partly by the difficulties from the side of Bavaria and Wurtemberg, which we have already noticed. The spring brought a project of the Austrian statesman Wessenberg, who pro- posed a Staaten-Bund rather than a Bundes- Staat ; and out of this and a new Prussian project drawn up by W. von Humboldt, grew the last sketch, which was submitted on the 23d of May 1815 to the general conference of the plenipoten- tiaries of all Germany. They made short work of it at the last, and the Federal-Act (Bundes- Acte) bears date June 8th, 1815. This is the document which is incorporated in the principal act of the Congress of Vienna, and placed under the guarantee of eight European powers, includ- ing France and England. Wurtemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Homburg, did not form part of the Confederation for some little time — the latter not till 1817 ; but after they were added to the powers at first consenting, the number of the sovereign states in the Confederation was alto- gether thirty-nine. . . . The following are the chief stipulations of the Federal Act. The ob- ject of the Confederation is the external and in- ternal security of Germany, and the independence and inviolability of the confederate states. A difete federative (Bundes-Versammlung) is to be created, and its attributions are sketched. The Diet is, as soon as possible, to draw up the funda- mental laws of the Confederation. No state is to make war with another, on any pretence. All federal territories are mutually guaranteed. There is to be in each state a ' Landstitndische Verfassung' — 'il y aura des assemblees d'etats dans tous les pays de la Confederation.' Art. 14 reserves many rights to the mediatised princes. Equal civil and political rights are guaranteed to all Christians in all German States, and stipula- tions are made in favour of the Jews. The Diet did not actually assemble before the 5th of November 1816. Its first measures, and, above all, its first words, were not unpopular. The Holy Allies, however, pressed with each succeed- ing month more heavily upon Germany, and got at last the control of the Confederation entirely 1565 GERMANY, 1814-1820. The Burschcischaft. GERMANY, 1817-1840. into their hands. The chief epochs in this sad history were the Congress of Carlsbad, 1819 — the resolutions of which against the freedom of the press were pronounced by Gentz to be a victory more glorious than Leipzig ; the ministerial con- ferences which immediately succeeded it at Vienna; and the adoption by the Diet of the Final Act (Schluss Acte) of the Confederation on the 8th of June 1830. The following are the chief stipulations of the Final Act: — The Con- federation is indissoluble. No new member can be admitted without the unanimous consent of all the states, and no federal territory can be ceded to a foreign power without their permis- sion. The regulations for the conduct of busi- ness by the Diet are amplified and more carefully defined. All quarrels between members of the Confederation are to be stopped before recourse is had to violence. The Diet may interfere to keep order in a state where the government of that state is notoriously incapable of doing so. Federal execution is provided for in case any government resists the authority of the Diet. Other articles declare the right of the Confedera- tion to make war and peace as a body, to guard the rights of each separate state from injury, to take into consideration the differences between its members and foreign nations, to mediate between them, to maintain the neutrality of its territory, to make war when a state belonging to the Con- federation is attacked in its non-federal territory if the attack seems likely to endanger Germany." — M. E. G. Dufl, Studies in European Polities, ch. 5. Also m: J. R. Seeley, Life and TYmes of Stein, pt. 8 (v. 3).— E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, v. 1, no. 26 {Text of Federative Constitu- tion). — See, also, Vienna: Congress op. A. D. 1815. —Napoleon's return from Elba. — The Quadruple Alliance. — The Waterloo campaign and its results. See France: A. D. 1814^1815. A. D. 1815. — Final Overthrow of Napoleon. — The Allies again in Paris. — Second treaty with France. — Restitutions and indemnities. — French frontier of 1790 re-established. See Fkauce; a. D. 1815 (June), (.July-Novem- ber). A. D. 1815.— The Holy Alliance. See Holt Alliance. A. D. 1817-1820.— The Burschenschaft.— Assassination of Kotzebue. — The Karlsbad Conference.— "In 1817, the students of several Universities assembled at the Wartburg in order to celebrate the tercentenary of the Reformation. In the evening, a small number of them, the majority having already left, were carried away by enthusiastic zeal, and, in imitation of Luther, burnt a number of writings recently published against German freedom, together with other emblems of wliat was considered hateful in the institutions of some of the German States. These youthful excesses were viewed by the Govern- ments as symptoms of grave peril. At the same time, a large number of students united to form one great German Burschenschaft [association of students], whose aim was the cultivation of a love of country, a love of freedom, and the moral sense. Thereupon increased anxiety on the part of the Governments, followed by vexatious po- lice interference. Matters grew worse in conse- quence of the rash act of a fanatical student, named Sand. It became known that the Russian Government was using all its powerful influence to have liberal ideas suppressed in Germany, and that the play-wright Kotzebue had secretly sent to Russia slanderous and libellous reports on German patriots. Sand travelled to Mannheim and thrust a dagger into Kotzebue's heart. The consequences were most disastrous to the cause of freedom in Germany. The distrust of the Governments reached its height: it washeld that this blood}' deed must needs be the result of a wide-spread conspiracy : the authorities sus- pected demagogues everywhere. Ministers, of course at the instigation of Metternich, met at Karlsbad, and determined on repressive meas- ures. These were afterwards adopted by the Federal Diet at Frankfort, which henceforth be- came an instrument in the hands of the Emperor Francis and his Minister for guiding the internal policy of the German States. Accordingly, the cession of state-constitutions was opposed, and prosecutions were instituted throughout Ger- many against all who identified themselves with the popular movement ; many young men were thrown into prison ; gymnastic and other socie- ties were arbitrarily suppressed ; a rigid censor- ship of the press was established, and the free- dom of the Universities restrained ; various pro- fessors, among them Arndt, whose songs had helped to fire the enthusiasm of the Freiheits- kiimpfer — the soldiers of Freedom — in the re- cent war, were deprived of their offices ; the Burschenschaft was dissolved, and the wearing of their colours, the future colours of the German Empire, black, red, and gold, was forbidden. . . . The Universities continued to uphold the national idea ; the Burschenschaft soon secretly revived as a private association, and as early as 1820 there again existed at most German Universities, Burschenschaften, which, though their aims were not sharply defined, Isore a political colour- ing and placed the demand for German Unity in the foreground." — G. Krause, The Crrowth of Oenntin Unity, ch. 8. A. D. 1817-1840. — Tendencies towards Ger- manic union and Prussian leadership. — The ZoUverein. — "In Austria, in the decades suc- ceeding the wars of liberation, there reigned the most immovable quiet. The much-praised system of government consisted in unthinking inactivity. The Emperor Francis, a man with the nature of a subaltern ofiicial, hated anything that approached to a constitution, and a say- ing of his was often quoted : ' Totus mundus stultizat et vult habere constitutiones novas.' Metternich's power rested on the ' dead motion- lessness ' of affairs. As far as his German policy was concerned his aim was to hold fast to the preponderating influence of Austria over the German states, but not to undertake any respon- sibilities towards them. ... As for Prussia, in spite of the great sacrifices which she had made, she emerged from the diplomatic negotiations and intrigues of the Vienna Congress with the most unfavorable disposition of territory imag- inable. To the five million inhabitants that had remained to her five and a half millions were added in districts that had belonged to more than a hundred different territories and had stood under the most varied laws. There began now for this state a time well filled with quiet work, the aim and object being to create a whole out of the various parts."— Bruno-Gebhardt. Lehr- buch derdcutschen Gesehichte {trans, from the Ger- 1566 GERMANY, 1817-1840. The ZoUverein. GERMANY. 1819-1847, inati) V 3, pp. 501-504.—" The German confedera- tion was, on the whole, provisional in its charac- ter • this fact comes out more and more plainly with each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution and of its institutions . . . lecn- nically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction of the confederation ; practically he possessed as emperor of Germany little or no power . . In reality the strongest member ot the German confederation was the kingdom ot Prussia. . . . Only gradually, in the various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the his- torical vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the German confederation or possi- blv of a new German empire. Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer convic- tion and gained more and more supporters. 1 he more evidently impossible an actual guidance ot Germany by Austria became, the more conscious did men'grow of the danger of the whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue In consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hege- mony began to be viewed with constantly increas- iuo- favor. A great step forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government when it called into being the ZoUverein [or customs-unionj. The ZoUverein laid iron binds around the separate parts of the German uation. It was utterly im- possible to think of forming a customs- union with Austria for all economic interests were as widely different as possible ; on purely material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the economic bonds between Prussia and the rest ot tlie German lands grew stronger from day to dav This material union was the prelude to the political one : the ZoUverein was the best and most effectual preparation for the German fed- eral state or for the German empire of later days" — W Maurenbrecher, Orinidung des deutschen Reichs, pp. 4, 5. -" Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his ' Correspondence of Two Germans, the first writing in the German language in which liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as the solution of the Ger- man question, and in which faith in Prussia was made a part of such love to the German father- land as should be no longer a mere dream. . . . ' So little as the dead shall rise again this side the grave, so little wiU Austria, which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory, ever again become for Germany what she has once teen'" — W. Oncken, Das Zcitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm (trans, from the German), v. l.pp. 69, 70. —The formation of the ZoUverein "was the most important occurrence since the wars of liberation : a deed of peace of more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting re- sults than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the ZoUverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly grow- ing customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues, for example, increased between 1884 and 1842 from 13 to 21 million thalers. Forei.n-n countries began to look with respect and in part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on the results which could not fail to come. ... A second event happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its begin- nings and "yet scarcely less important m its re- sults than tiie ZoUverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large raihroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that network of roada that was soon to branch out in all directions and spread itself over aU Germany. ... A direct poUtical occurrence, independent of the ZoUver- ein and the raihoads, was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by mak- in" evident and "plain the lack of such unity and its°disastrous consequences. This was the Han- overian 'coup d'etat' of the year 1837. . _ . In that year William IV. of England died without direct successors. . . . Hanover came into the hands of the Duke of Cumberland. Ernest Au- eustus. . . . The new king, soon after his in- Su"-uration, refused to recognize the constitution that had been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at that time. . ._. By persistmit efforts Ernest Augustus . . . m 1840 brou"-ht about a constitution that suited him Still more than this constitutional strug- gle itself did a single incident connected with it Sccupy and excite public opinion far and wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested against the abrogation of the constitu- tion of 1833. . . . Without more ado they were dismissed from their positions. . . . The brave deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence committed against them caused intense excitement throughout all Germany. In the course of the forties the idea ot nationality penetrated more and more all the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by pressure from all sides, the direc- tion of a great and common goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform ... but soon the "national needs outgrew such single ex- pressions of good will. ... A tendency began to show itself in the public opinion of Ger many to accept the plan of a Prussian leader ship of aU iin- Austrian Germany."— K. Bieder maun, Dreissig Jahre deutscher Oeschiehte, v. 1, »n. 9-91. , ... AD 1819-1847.— Arbitrary rulers and dis- contented subjects.— The ferment before rev- olution.— Formation ol the ZoUverein.— "The history of Germany during the thirty years of peace which followed [the Congress of Carlsbadj is marked by very few events of importance. It was a season of gradual reaction on the part of the rulers, and of increasing impatience and en mity on the part of the people. Instead of be- coming loving famOies, as the Holy AUiance de- si n-ned the states (except some of the iittle principalities) were divided into two hostile classes There was material growth everywhere ; the wounds left by war and foreign occupation \Yere gradually healed ; there was order, security for all who abstained from politics, and a com- fortable repose for such as were indifferent to the future But it was a sad and disheartening period for the men who were able to see clearly how Germany, with all the elements of a freer and strono;er"lite existing in her people, was fall- ing behind the political development of other countries. The three days' Revolution of 1830 which placed Louis Philippe on the throne of France was followed by popular uprisings in some parts of Germany. Prussia and -A-Ustria were too strong, and their people too well held in check, to be affected ; but in Brunswick the despotic Duke, Karl, was deposed. Saxony and Hesse-Cassel were obliged to accept co-rulers 1567 GERMANY, 1819-1847. Arbitrary Government. GERMANY, 1848. (out of their reigning families) and tlie English Duke, Ernest Augustus, was made viceroy of Hannover. These four States also adopted a constitutional form of government. The Ger- man Diet, as a matter of course, used what power it possessed to counteract these movements, but its influence was limited by its own laws of action. The hopes and aspirations of the people were kept alive, in spite of the system of repres- sion, and some of the smaller States took advan- tage of their independence to introduce various measures of reform. As industry, commerce and travel increased, the existence of so many boini- daries, with their custom-houses, taxes and other hindrances, became an unendurable burden. Ba- varia and Wlirtemberg formed a customs union in 1838, Prussia followed, and by 1836 all of Ger- many except Austria was united in the Zoll- verein (Tariff Union) [see Tariff Legislation (Germany): A. D. 1833], which was not only a great material advantage, but helped to inculcate the idea of a closer political union. On the other hand, however, the monarchical reaction against liberal government was stronger than ever. Ernest Augustus of Hannover arbitrarily over- threw the constitution he had accepted, and Lud- wig I. of Bavaria, renouncing all his former pro- fessions, made his land a very nest of absolutism and Jesuitism. In Prussia, such men as Stein, Gueisenau, and Wilhelm von Humboldt had long lost their influence, while others of less personal renown, but of similar political sentiments, were subjected to contemptible forms of persecution. In March, 1835, Francis II. of Austria died, and was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., a man of such weak intellect that he was in some respects idiotic. On the 7th of June, 1840, Frederick William III. of Prussia died, and was also suc- ceeded by his son, Frederick William IV., a man of great wit and intelligence, who had made him- self popular as Crown-prince, and whose acces- sion the people hailed with joy, in the enthu.si- astic belief that better days were coming. The two dead monarchs, each of whom had reigned 43 years, left behind them a better memory among their people than they actually deserved. They were both weak, unstable and narrow- minded ; had they not been controlled by others, they would have ruined Germany ; but they were alike of excellent personal character, amiable, and very kindly disposed towards their subjects so long as the latter were perfectly obedient and reverential. There was no change in the condi- tion of Austria, for Metternich remained the real ruler, as before. In Prussia a few unimportant concessions were made, an amnesty for political offences was declared, Alexander von Humboldt became the king's chosen associate, and much was done for science and art ; but in their main hope of a liberal reorganization of the govern- ment, the people were bitterly deceived. Fred- erick William IV. took no steps towards the adoption of a Constitution ; he made the censor- ship and the supervision of the police more severe ; he Interfered in the most arbitrary and bigoted manner in the system of religious in- struction in the schools ; and all his acts showed that his policy was to strengthen his throne by the support of the nobility and the civil service, without regard to the just claims of the people. Thus, in spite of the external quiet and order, the political atmosphere gradually became more sul- try and disturbed. . . . There were signs of im- patience in all quarters ; various local outbreaks occurred, and the aspects were so threatening that in February, 1847, Fi-ederick William IV. endeavored to silence the growing opposition by ordering the formation of a Legislative As- sembly. But the provinces were represented, not the people, and the measure only emboldened the latter to clamor for a direct representation. Thereupon, the king closed the Assembly, after a short session, and the attempt was probably productive of more harm than good. In most of the other German States, the situation was very similar ; everywhere there were elements of opposition, all the more violent and dangerous, because they had been kept down with a strong hand for so many years." — B. Taylor, Bist. of Germany, ch. 37. Also in : C. A. Fyffe, Hist, of Modern Europe, V. 2, ch. Sandl. — See, also, Austria: A. D. 1815- 1835. A. D. 1820-1822. — The Congresses of Trop- pau, Laybach and Verona. See Verona, The Congress op. A. D. 1835-1846.— Death of the Emperor Francis I. of Austria. — Accession of Ferdi- nand I. — Extinction of the Polish republic of Cracow. — Its annexation to Austria. See Austria: A. D. 1815-1846. A. D. 1839-1840. — The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement. — Quadruple Al- liance. See Titrks: A. D. 1831-1^40. A. D. 1848 (March). — Revolutionary out- breaks. — The King of Prussia heads a national movement. — Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens at Berlin. — "The French revolution of February, the flight of Louis Philippe and the fall of the throne of the barricades, and the proc- lamation of a republic, had kindled from one end to the other of Europe the enthusiasm of the republican party. The conflagration rapidly ex- tended itself. The Rhenish provinces of Prussia, whose near neighbourhood and former connexion with France made them more peculiarly combus- tible, broke out with a cry for the most extensive reforms ; that is to say, for representative insti- tutions, the passion for which had spread over the whole of Germany. . . . The reform fever which had attacked the Rhenish provinces quickly spread to the rest of the body politic. The urban populace — a class in all countries rarely incited to agitation — took the lead. They were headed by the students. Breslau, Kbnigs- berg, and Berlin, were in violent commotion. In the month of JMarch, a great open air meeting was held at Berlin : it ended in a riot. The troops were called out to act against the mob. For near a week, Berlin was in a state of chronic dis- turbance. The troops acted with great firmness. The mob gathered together, but did not show much fight; but they were dispersed with difB- culty, and continued to offer a passive resistance to the soldiers. On the 15th, ten persons were said to have been killed, and over 100 wounded. At the same time, similar scenes were being en- acted at Breslau and Konigsberg, where several persons lost their lives. A deputation from the Rhenish provinces arrived at Berlin on the 18th, bearing a petition from Cologne to the king for reform. He promised to grant it. . . . Finding he could not keep the movement in check, he re- solved to put himself at the head of it. It was probably the only course open to him, if he would preserve his crown. . . . The lung must 1568 GERMANY, 1848. Revolutionary Movements. GERMANY, 1848. have previously had the questions which were agitating Germany under careful consideration ; for he at once published a proclamation embody- ing the whole of them : the unity of Germany, by forming it into a federal state, with a fed";al representation ; representative institutions for the separate states ; a general military system for all Germany, under one federal banner; a German fleet; a tribunal for settling disputes between the states, and a right for all Germans to settle and trade in any part of Germany they thought fit ; the whole of Germany formed into one cus- toms union, and included in the ZoUvereln ; one system of money, weights, and measures; and the freedom of the press. These were the sub- jects touched upon. . . . The popularity of the proclamation with the mob-leaders was un- bounded, and the mob shouted. Every line of it contained their own ideas, vigorously expressed. Their delight was proportionate to their astonish- ment. A crowd got together at the palace to ex- press their gratitude ; the king came out of a window, and was loudly cheered. Two regi- ments of dragoons unluckily mistook the cheer- ing for an attack, and began pushing them back by forcing their horses forward. . . . Unfor- tunately, as the conflict (if conflict it could be called, which was only a bout of which could push hardest) was going forward, two musket- shots were fired by a regiment of infantry. It appears that the muskets went off accidentally. No one was injured by them. It is not clear they were not blank cartridges; but the people took fright. They imagined that there was a design to slaughter them. At once they rushed to arms; barricades were thrown up in every street. . . . Sharpshooters placed themselves in -the windows and behind the barricades, and opened a fire on the soldiery. These, exasper- ated by what they thought an unfair species of fighting, were by no means unwilling for the fray. . . . The troops carried barricade after bar- ricade, and gave no quarter even to the unresist- ing. As they took the houses, they slaughtered all the sharpshooters they found in them, not very accurately discriminating those engaged in hostilities from those who were not. Horrible cruelties were committed on both sides. . . . The fight raged for fifteen hours. Either the king lost his head when it began, or the troops, hav- ing their blood up, would not stop. . . . The firing began at two o'clock on the 18th of March, and the authorities succeeded in withdrawing the troops and stopping it the next morning at five o'clock, they having been during that time suc- cessful at all points. . . . The king put out a manifesto at seven o'clock, declaring that the whole business arose from an unlucky misunder- standing between the troops and the people, as it unquestionably did, and the people appear to have been aware of the fact and ashamed of themselves. ... A general amnesty was pro- claimed for all parties concerned, and orders were given to form at once a burgher guard to supply the place of the military, who were to be witlidrawn. A new ministry was appointed, of a liberal character. . . . The troops were marched out of the town, and were cheered by the people. ... It is estimated that, of the populace, about 200 were killed ; 187 received a public funeral. No accurate account of the wounded can be ob- tained. ... Of the troops, accox'ding to the of- ficial returns, there fell 3 officers and 17 non- commissioned officers and privates ; of wounded there were 14 officers, 14 non-commissioned offi- cers, and 235 privates, and 1 surgeon. . . . Tlie king's object was to divert popular enthusiasm into another channel ; he therefore assumed the lead in the regeneration of Germany. On the 21st he issued a proclamation, enlarging on these views, and rode through the streets with the proscribed German tricolor on his helmet, and was vociferously cheered as he passed along. Prussia was not tlie first of the German states where the old order of things was overturned. During the whole of the month of March, Ger- many underwent the process of revolution. . . . On the 3d of March . . . the new order of things . . . began at Wurtemberg. The Duke of Hesse- Darmstadt abdicated. In Bavaria, things took a more practical turn. The people insisted on the dismissal of the king's mistress, Lola Montez: she was sent away, but, trusting to the king's dotage, she came back, police or no police — was received by the king — he created her Countess of Lansfeldt. This was a climax to which the people were not prepared to submit. . . . The king was compelled to expel her, to annul her patent of naturalization, and resume the grant he had made of property in her favour. This was more than he could stand, and he shortly after abdicated in favour of his heir. In Saxony the king gave way, after his troops had refused to act, and the freedom of the press was estab- lished, and other popular demands granted. In Vienna, the old system of Metternich was abol- ished, after a revolution which was little more than a street row. The king of Hanover refused to move, but was eventually induced to receive Stube as one of his ministers, who had been pre- viously in prison for his opinions. However, he was firmer than most of his brother monarchs, and his country suffered less than the rest of Germany in consequence." — E. S. Cayley, The European Revolutions of 1848, v. 2: Germany, ch. 2. Also IN: C. E. Maurice, The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9, ch. 7. A. D. 1848 (March— September).— Election and meeting of the National Assembly at Frankfort. — Resignation of the Diet. — Elec- tion of Archduke John to be Administrator of Germany. — Powerlessness of the new govern- ment. — Troubles rising from the Schleswig- Holstein question. — Outbreak at Frankfort. — The setting in of Reaction. — "In south-western Germany the liberal party set itself at the head of the movement. . . . The Heidelberg assem- bly of March 5th, consisting of the former oppo- sition leaders in the various Chambers, issued a call to the German nation, and chose a commis- sion of seven men, who were to make proposi- tions with regard to a permanent parliament and to summon a preliminary parliament at Frank- fort. This preliminary parliament assembled in St. Paul's church, March 31st. . . . The ma- jority, consisting of constitutional monarchists, resolved that an assembly chosen by direct vote of the people . . . should meet in the month of May, with full and sovereign power to frame a constitution for all Germany. . . . These meas- ures did not satisfy the radical party, whose leaders were Hecker and Struve. As their propo- sition to set up a sovereign assembly, and repub- licanize Germany, was rejected, they left Frank- fort, and held in the higlUands of Baden popular 99 L569 GERMANY, 1848. The National GERMANY, 1848. meetings at. which they demanded the proclama- tion of the republic. A Hesse- Darmstadt corps under Frederic von Gagern . . . was sent to disperse them. An engagement took place at Kandern, in which Gagern was shot, but Hecker and his followers were put to flight. . . . The disturbances in Odenwald, and in the Main and Tauber districts, once the home of the peasant war, were of a different description. There the country people rose against the landed proprie- tors, destroyed the archives, with the odious tithe and rental books, and demolished a few castles. The Diet, which in the meantime con- tinued its illusory existence, thought to extricate itself from the present difficulties by a few con- cessions. It . . . invited the governments to send confidential delegates to undertake, along with its members, a revision of the constitution of the confederation. . . . These confidential delegates, among them the poet Uhland, from WUrtemberg, began their work on the 30th of March. The elections for the National Assembly stirred to their innermost fibres the German peo- ple, dreaming of the restoration of their former greatness. May 18th about 320 delegates assem- bled in the Imperial Hall, in the Romer (the Rathhaus), at Frankfort. . . . Never has a po- litical assembly contained a greater number of Intellectual and scholarly men — men of charac- ter and capable of self-sacrifice ; but it certainly was not the forte of these numerous professors and jurists to conduct practical politics. The moderate party was decidedly in the majorit)'. ... It was decided . . . that a provisional cen- tral executive should be created in the place of the Diet, and created, not by the National As- sembly in concert with the princes, but by the National Assembly alone. June 37th, following out the bold conception of its president, the as- sembly decided to appoint an irresponsible ad- ministrator, with a responsible ministry; and June 39th, Archduke John of Austria was chosen Administrator of Germany by 436 votes out of 546. He made his entry into Frankfort July 11th, and entered upon his office on the following day. The hour of the Diet had struck, appar- ently for the last time. It resigned its authority into the hands of the Administrator, and, after an existence of 33 years, left the stage un- mourned. Archduke John was a popular prince, who found more pleasure in the mountain air of Tyrol and Styria than in the perfumed atmos- phere of the Vienna court. But, as a novice 66 years of age, he was not equal to the task of governing, and as a thorough Austrian he lacked a heart for all Germany. The main question for him and for the National Assembly was, what force they could apply in case the individual governments refused obedience to the decrees issued in the name of the National Assembly. This was the Achilles's heel of the German revo- lution. . . . Orders were issued by the federal minister of war that all the troops of the Con- federation should swear allegiance to the federal administrator on the 6th of August ; but Prussia and Austria, with the exception of the Vienna garrison, paid no attention to these orders ; Ernest Augustus, in Hanover, successfully set his hard head against them, and only the lesser states obeyed. . . . There certainly was no other way out of the difficulty than by the formation of a parliamentary army. . . . Instead of meeting these dangers resolutely, and in a common-sense way, the Assembly left matters to go as they would, outside of Frankfort. One humiliation was submitted to after another, while the Assem- bly, busying itself for months with a theoretical question, as if it were a juristic faculty, entered into a detailed consideration of the fundamental rights of the German people. The Schleswig- Holstein question, which had just entered upon a new phase of its existence, was the first matter of any importance to manifest the disagreement between the central administration and the sepa- rate governments ; and it opened, as well, a dan- gerous gulf in the Assembly itself. The question at issue was one of succession [see ScANDiKAVTAir States (Denmark) : A. D. 1848-1862]. . . . The Estates of the duchies [Schleswig and Holstein] established a provisional government, applied at Frankfort for the admission of Schleswig into the German confederation, and besought armed assistance both there and at Berlin. The prelim- inary parliament [tliis having occurred in April, before the meeting of the National Assembly] approved the application of Schleswig for ad- mission, and commissioned Prussia, in conjunc- tion with the 10th army corps of the Confedera- tion, to occupy Schleswig and Holstein. On the 21st of April, 1848, General Wrangel crossed the Eider as commander of the forces of the Confed- eration; and on the 33d, in conjunction with the Schleswig-Holstein troops, he drove the Danes out of the Danewerk. On the following day the Danes were defeated at Oeversee by the 10th army corps, and all Schleswig-Holstein was free. Wrangel entered Jutland and imposed a war tax of 3,000,000 thalers (about $3, 250, 000). He meant to occupy this province until the Danes — who, owing to the inexcusable smallness of the Prussian navy, were in a position unhindered to injure the commerce of the Baltic — had indem- nified Prussia for her losses ; but Prussia, touched to the quick by the destruction of her commerce, and intimidated by the threatening attitude of Russia, Sweden, and England, recalled her troops, and concluded an armistice at Malmo, in Sweden, on the 36th of August. All measures of the provisional government were pronounced invalid ; a common government for the duchies was to be appointed, one half by Denmark, and the other by the German confederation; the Schleswig troops were to be separated from those of Holstein ; and the war was not to be renewed before the 1st of April, 1849 — i. e. , not in the winter, a time unfavorable for the Danes. This treaty was unquestionably no masterpiece on the part of the Prussians. All the advantage was on the side of the conquered Danes. ... It was not merely the radicals who urged, if not the final rejection, at least a provisional cessation of tlie arvnistice, and the countermanding of the order to retreat. ... A bill to that effect, de- manded by the honor of Germany, had scarcely been passed by the majority, on the 5th of Sep- tember, when the moderate party reflected that such action, involving a breach with Prussia, must lead to civil war and revolution, and call into play the wildest passions of the already ex- cited people. In consequence of this the previ- ous vote was rescinded, and the armistice of Malmo accepted by the Assembly, after the most excited debates, September 16th." This gave the radicals a welcome opportunity to appeal to the fists of the lower classes, and imitate the June outbreak of the social democrats In Paris. . . . 1570 GERMANY, 1848. The FriLSsian National Assembly. GERMANY, 1848-1850. A collision ensued [September 18] ; barricades were erected, but were carried by the troops without much bloodshed. . . . General Auers- wald and Prince Lichnowsky, riding on horse- back near the city, were followed by a mob. They took refuse in a gardener s house on tne Bornheimer-heidc, but were dragged out and murdered witli tlie most disgraceful atrocities Thereupon the city was declared in a state ot siege all societies were forbidden, and strong measures were taken for the maintenance ot order The March revolution had passed its season, and reaction was again beginning to bloom . Reaction drew moderate men to its side, and then used them as stepping-stones to Immoderation. "-W. Miiller, Political Hut. of Becent Tim£s, sect. n. Also k; Sir A. Alison, Hist, of Europe, 1815- 1853, ch. 53. . . . .„ A D. 1848-1849.— Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary.-Bombardment of Vi- enna.-The war in Hungary.-Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.-Accession of Fi-a"- cis Joseph. See AusTRLV. A. D. 1848-lb49. A D 1848-1850.— The Prussian National Assembly, and its dissolution.-The work and the failure of the National Assembly of Frank- fort — Refusal of the imperial crown by the King- of Prussia.— End of the movement for Germanic unity.-" The elections for the new Prussian Constituent Assembly, as well as tor the Frankfort Parliament, were to take place (May 1) The Prussian National Assembly was to meet May 23. The Prussian people, under the new election law, if left to themselves, would have quietly chosen a body of competent repre- sentatives; but the revolutionary party thought nothing could be done without the as and the musket. ... The people of Berlin, from March to October, were . . . really in the hands of the mob . The newly-elected Prussian National Assembly was opened by the king. May 31. . . One of the first resolutions proceeded from Beh- rend of the Extreme Left. ' The Assembly rec- o-^nizes the revolution, and declares that the com- batants who fought at the barricades, on March 18 and 19, merit the thanks of the country. . . . The motion was rejected. On issuing from the building into the street, after the sitting, the members who had voted against it, were received by the mob with threats and insults. • • • la the evening of the same day, in consequence ot the reiection of the Behrend resolution the arsenal was attacked by a large body of aborers. The burgher-guard were not prepared, and macle a feeble defense. There was a great riot. The building was stormed and partially plundered. The sketch of a constitution proposed by the kino- was now laid before the Assembly. It provided two Chambers — a House of Lords, and a House of Commons. The last to be elected by the democratic electoral law ; the first to consist of all the princes of the royal house m their own rin-ht and, in addition, 60 members from the wealthiest of the kingdom to be selected by the king their office hereditary. This constitution was immediately reiected. On the rejection of the constitution the ministry Camphausen re- signed ■ The Assembly, elected exclusively to frame a constitution, instead of performing its duty . attempted to legislate, with despotic power, on subjects over which it had no juris- diction As the drama drew nearer its close, the Assembly became more open in its intention to overthrow the monarchy. On October 13 dis- cussions began upon a resolution to strike trom the king's tftle the words, 'By the grace of God. and to tbolish all titles of nobility and distinc- tions of rank. The Assembly building, during the sitting, was generally surrounded by threat- ening crowds. . . . Of course, during this period busiSess was suspended, and want, beggary, and drunkenness, as well as lawless disorder, in- creased . The writer was one day alone in the diplomatic box, following an excited debate. A speaker in the tribune was urging the overthrow of the monarchy, when suddenly the entire As- sembly was struck mute with stupefaction, ine Prince of Prussia, the late Emperor WiUiaml., supposed to be in England, in terror for his lite, appeared at the door, accompanied by two offi- cers all Ihree in full uniform, and marched di- rectly up to the tribune. The Assembly could not have been more astounded had old Barbarossa himself, with his seven-hundred-years-long beard, marched into the hall out of his mountain cave. After a slight delay, the President, Mr. von Grabow, accorded the tribune to the prince He ascended and made a short address, which was listened to with breathless attention, by every individual present. He spoke with the assurance of an heir to a throne which was not m the slightest danger of being abolished ; but he spoke with the modesty and good sense of a pnnce who frankly accepted the vast transformation which the government had undergone, and who in- tended honestly to endeavor to carry out the wiU of the whole nation. . . . This was one of many occasions on which the honesty and superiority of the prince's character made itself felt even by his enemies. . . . Berlin was now thoroughly tired of street tumults and the horn of the burgher-guard. . . . The Prussian troops which had been engaged in the Schleswig-Holstein war, were now placed under General Wrange , . _. . He proceeded without delay to encircle the city with the 35,000 troops. At the same time, a cabinet order of the king (September 31 named a new ministry. ... At this moment, the revo- lution over all Europe was nearly exhausted. Cavaignac had put down the June insurrection. The Prussian flag waved above the flag ot Ger- manv The Frankfort Parliament was rapidly dvin'r out. ... On November 2, Count Bran- denburg stated to the Assembly that the king had requested him to form a new ministry . _. On the same day. Count Brandenburg, with his colleagues, appeared in the hall of the Prussian National Assembly, and announced his desire to read a message from his Majesty the King. . . . ' As the debates are no longer free in Berlin, the Assembly is hereby adjourned to November 27. It will then meet, and thereafter hold its meet- ino-s not in Berlin, but in Brandenburg (fitty mfle's from Berlin). After reading the message Count Brandenburg, his colleagues, and all tne members of the Right retired. ., . .. The Assem- blv adjourned, and met again m the evening. " On November 10, the Assembly met again. Their debates were interrupted by General Wrann-el who had entered Berhn by the Bran- denburg gate, at the head of 25,000 troops . . . An officer from General Wrangel entered thehaU and politely announced tliat he had received orders to disperse the Assembly. The members submitted, and left the hall. ... An order was ]571 GERMANY, 1848-1850. End of the Revolution, GERMANY, 1861-1866. now issued dissolving the burgher-guard. On the 12th, Berlin was declared in a state of siege. . . . During the state of siege, the Assembly met again under the presidency of Mr. von Unruh. A body of troops entered the hall, and commanded the persons present to leave it. Pres- ident von Unruh declared he could not consis- tently obey the order. There was, he said, no power higher than the Assembly. The soldiers did not fire on him, or cut him down with their sabers ; but good-naturedly lifted his chair with him in it, and gently deposited both in tlie street. . . . On November 27, Count Brandenburg went to Brandenburg to open the Assembly; but he could not find any. It had split into two parts. . . . There was no longer a quorum. Thus the Prussian National Assembly disappeared. On December 5, appeared a royal decree, dissolving the National Assembly. . . . Then appeared a provisional octroyirte electoral law, for the elec- tion of two Chambers. . . . The new Chambers met February 26, 1849. . . . Prussia had thus closed the revolution of 1848, as far as she was concerned. Bismarck was elected member of the Second Chamber." Meantime, in the Frank- fort Parliament, "the great question, Austria's position with regard to the new Germany, came up in the early part of November, 1848. Among many propositions, we mention three: I. Aus- tria should abandon her German provinces. . . . II. Austria should remain as a separate whole, with all her provinces. . . . III. The Austrian plan. All the German States, and all the Austrian provinces (German and non-German), should be united into one gigantic empire . . . with Aus- tria at the head. . . . Meanwhile, the debates went on upon the questions: What shall be the form, and who shall be the chief of what may be called the Prussian-Germany ? Among the va- rious propositions (all rejected) were the follow- ing : I. A Directorj', consisting of Austria. Prus- sia, Bavaria, Wlirtemberg, and Sa.xony. II. The King of Prussia and Emperor of Austria to alter- nate in succession every six years, as Emperor. III. A chief magistracy, to which every German citizen might aspire. IV. Revival of the old Bundestag, with certain improvements. On Janu- ary 23, 1849, the resolution that one of the reign- ing German princes should be elected, with the title of Emperor of Germany, was adopted (258 against 211). As it was plain the throne could be offered to no one but Prussia, this was a breach between the Parliament and Austria. . . . The first reading of the constitution was completed, February 3, 1849. The middle and smaller Ger- man States declared themselves ready to accept it, but the kingdoms remained silent. . . . The real question before the Parliament was, whether Prussia or Austria should be leader of Germany. ... On March 37, the hereditability passed by a majority of four. On JIarch 28, the constitution, with the democratic electoral law, universal suf- frage, the ballot, and the suspensive veto, was voted and accepted. . . . President Simson then called the name of each member to vote upon the question of the Emperor. There were 290 votes for Frederic William IV. . . . A deputation, con- sisting of 30 of the most distinguished members, was immediately sent to Berlin to communicate to the king his election as Emperor. ... To the offer of the crown, his Majesty replied he 'could not ac- cept without the consent of all the governments, and without having more carefully examined the constitution.'. . . Austria instantly rejected the constitution, protested against the authority of the Parliament, and recalled all her representa- tives from Frankfort. The King of Wllrtemberg accepted ; but rejected the House of Hohenzollern as head of the Empire. Bavaria, Hanover, Sax- onjr, rejected ; 28 of the smaller German States accepted. In these were included the free-cities Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck. ... On April 28, Prussia addressed a circular note to the govern- ments, inviting them to send representatives to Berlin, for the purpose of framing a new constitu- tion. The note added : In case of any attempt to force the Fi-ankf ort constitution upon the country, Prussia was read j' to render to the governments all necessary assistance. . . . On May 3, an insurrec- tion broke out in Saxony. . . . On May 6, Prussian troops appeared, called by the Saxon government, and attacked the barricades. The battle lasted three days. . . . The insurgents abandoned the city. Dresden was declared in a state of siege. . . . The King of Prussia now recalled [from the Frankfort Parliament] all the Prussian represen- tatives. . . . By the gradual disappearance of most of the moderate members . . . the Parlia- ment, now a mere revolutionary committee, dwin- dled down to about 100 members. A resolution, proposed by Carl Vogt, was passed to transfer the sittings to Stuttgart. . . . On June 6, the Rump Parliament in Stuttgart elected a central government of its own. . . . The Assembly was then dispersed. . . . The German revolutions commenced and ended in the Grand Duchy of Baden. . . . By a mutiny in the regular army, it intrenched itself in the first-class fortress, Ras- tadt. There were, in all, three attempts at revolu- tion in Baden [and one in the Palatinate]. ... A large number of the leaders were tried and shot. ... It was for taking part in this insurrection that Gottfried Kinkel was sentenced to impris- onment for life in the fortress of Spandau. Carl Schurz aided him in escaping." — T. S. Fay, TAe Three Germanys, ch. 35-26 (w. 2). Also in : C. A. Fyffe, Hist, of Modern Europe, i\ 3, cli. 2. — H. von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, bk. 2-5 (v. 1-3). — See, also, Con- stitution OF Prussi.\. A. D. 1848-1862. — Opening of the Schleswig- Holstein question. — War ■with Denmark. See Scandinavian States (Denmabk) : A. D. 1848- 1863. A. D. 1853-1875. — Commercial treatieswith Austria and France. — Progress towards free trade. See Tariff Legislation (Germany): A. D. 1853-1893. A. D. 1861-1866.— Advent of King William I. and Prince Bismarck in Prussia. — The "Blood and Iron Speech." — Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question. — Conquest of the duchies by Prussia and Austria. — Con- sequent quarrel and war. — King Frederick Wil- liam IV. [of Prussia], never a man of strong head, had for years been growing weaker and more eccentric. In 1857, symptoms of softening of the brain began to show themselves. That disorder so developed itself that in October, 1857, he gave a delegation to the Prince of Prussia [his brother] to act as regent ; but the first commis- sion was only for three months. The Prince's commission was renewed from time to time ; but it soon became apparent that Frederick William's case was hopeless, and his brother was formally installed as Regent in October, 1858. Ultimately 1572 GERMANY, 1861-1866. Bismarck. GERMANY, 1861-1866. the King died iu January, 1861, and his brother succeeded to the throne as William I. In Sep- tember, 1863, Otto von Bismarck became the new King's chief minister, witli General Roon for Minister of War, appointed to carry out a reor- ganization of the Prussian army which King William had determined to effect. " Otto von Bismarck- Schoenhauseu, born April, 1, 181.5, was a Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia, Pomeraniaand the Mark, his lite had been thoroughly merged in that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to himself in 1847 at tlie general diet [Vereinigter Landtag]. In 1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 18.50 in the Union Parlia- ment at Frankfort — always as the goad of the extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck flared up with especial violence against the democratic attacks on the army and the monarchy. ... To Frank- fort Bismarck came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. ... In Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs ; the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of having so many petty states. ... To Ills mind the goal of Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then to bring about a subordination of the other German states to Prussia. . . . Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by bravery in battle : ' All gained before the enemy, all gained here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859 came the com- plications between Austria and Italy, the latter being joined by France. This Italian war be- tween Austria and France thoroughly roused the German nation. . . . Many wanted to protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the lists for Austria's rule over Italy. . . . Bis- marck's advice at this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg : ' put on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for future use.' . . . In June, 1859, in view of the Italian war, it had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized and kept iu readiness to fight. . . . Wlien, later, in the summer of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a begin- ning was made with a new formation of regi- ments which had already been planned and talked over. ... On February 10, 1860, the question of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where doubts and objections were raised against it. . . . On the 4th of May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was re- jected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered. The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma ; should it give way to the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed regiments ? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever enough but it led in 15' reality to a blind alley and was productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the pur- pose of completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the former footing. The mo- tion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a vote of 315 against 3. . . . The new elections for the house of deputies iu December, 1861, produced a diet of an entirely different stamp from that of 18.58. . . . The moderate majority was now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of crushing the army- reform. . . . The chief task of the newly formed ministry of 1863 was to solve the military ques- tion, for the longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had the matter become. The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of May. . . . The battle cry of the ma- jority of the diet was that all further demands of the government for the military reform were to be refused. . . . By September, 1863, the belli- gerent and uncompromising attitude of the lib- eral majority had induced King William to lay aside his earlier distrust of Bismarck. He al- lowed him to be summoned and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the Park of Babelsberg on September 33. The king first of all laid before Bismarck the decla- ration of his abdication. Very much startled, Bismarck said ; ' To that it should never be al- lowed to come ! ' The king replied that he had tried everything and knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign, for- bade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might abandon all thoughts of abdication. 'The king than asked the minister if he woidd undertake to carry on the government without a majority and without a budget, Bismarck answered both questions iu the affirmative and with the utmost decision. . . . The alliance between the king and his min- ister was closed and cemented on that 33rd of September in Babelsberg to endure tor all time." — W. Maurenbrecher, Grundinig des deutschen liciehs (trans, from the German), p. 13. — A week later, Bismarck made his famous "Blood and Iron " speech in the Prussian Diet, when he said ; " It is a fact, the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes constitutional government very iiard in Prussia. . . . We are perhaps too ' cultured ' to tolerate a constitution ; we are too critical ; the ability to pass judgment on measures of the government or acts of the legislature is too universal; there is a large num- ber of ' C'atilinarian Characters ' [existences in the original] in the land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life is in Prussia. The people are too sensitive about the faults of the government ; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable, the press is not public opinion ; every one knows how tlie pre.ss originates ; the representatives have the higher task of directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to our people : our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an armor 73 GERMANY, 1861-1866. Prussia ayainst Austria. GERMANY, 1861-1866. too large for our small body ; now let us utilize it. Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its power. Let Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism, yet no one will as- sign to them the role of Prussia ; Prussia must consolidate its might and hold it together for the favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded several times. Prussia's boun- daries, as determined by the Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and res- olutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are solved — that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849 — but by Blood and Ima."— Die Politiselun Reden des Filrsten, Bismarck (trans, from tlie German) v. 3, pp. 20, 28-30. — Bismarck found his first opportunity for the aggrandize- ment of Prussia in a reopening of the Sleswig- Holsteiu question, which came about in Novem- ber, 1863, when "Frederic of Denmark died, and Prince Christian succeeded to the throne of that kingdom. Already before his accession, the duchies were possessions of the Danish mon- archy, but had in certain respects a separate ad- ministrative existence. This Denmark, in the year of Christian's accession, had materially in- fringed in the case of Sleswig, by a law which virtually incorporated that duchy with the Danish monarchy. The German Confederation protested against this ' Danification ' of Sleswig, and having pronounced a decree of Federal execution against the aev/ King of Denmark as Duke of Holsteiu and, in virtue of that duchy, a member of the German Confederation, sent into Holstein Federal troops belonging to the smaller States of the Confederation. The Confederation, as a col- lective body, favoured the establishment of the independence of the duchies, and had with it the wishes probably of the great mass of the German nation. But the independence of Sleswig and Holstein scarcely suited the views of Bismarck. He desired the annexation to Prussia of at all events Holstein, because in Holstein is the great harbour of Kiel, all important in view of the new fleet with which he purposed equipping Prussia ; if Sleswig could be cwnpassed along with Hol- stein, so much the better. But there were two difliculties in Bismarck's way. Prussia was a co-signatory of the Treaty of London. If he were to grasp at the duchies single-handed, a host of enemies might confront him. England was burning to take up arms in 'the cau.se of the father of the beautiful princess she had adopted as her own. The German Confederation would oppose Prussia's naked effort to aggrandise her- self ; and Austria, in the double character of a party to the Treaty of London and of a member of the Confederation, would rejoice in the oppor tunity to strike a blow at a power of whose rising pretensions she had begun to be jealous. The wily Bismarck had to dissemble. He made the proposal to Austria that the two states should ignore their participation as individual States in the Treaty of London, and that as corporate members of the German Confederation they should constitute themselves the executors of the Federal decree, and put aside the minor states whose troops had been charged with that office. Austria acceded. It was a bad hour for her when she did, yet she moves no compassion for the misfortunes which befell her as the issue. . . . The Diet had to s\ibmit. The Austro-Prus- siau troops marched through Holstein into Sles- wig, and on the 2nd of February, 1864, struck at the Danes occupying the Dannewerke. . . . The venerable Marshal Wrangel was commander-in- chief of the combined forces until after the fall of Diippel, when Prince Frederic Charles suc- ceeded him in that position ; but throughout the campaign the control of the dispositions was mainly exercised by the Red Prince. But neither strategy nor tactics were very strenuously brought into use for the discomfiture of the un- fortunate Danes. Their ruin was wrought partly because of the overwhelmingly superior force of their allied opponents, partly because of their own unpreparedness for war in almost everj'thing save the possession of heroic bravery ; but most of all by the flre of the needle-gun and the Prus- sian advantage in the possession of rifled artillery. Only part of the Prussian infantry had used the needle-gun in the reduction of the Baden insur- rection in 1848 ; now, however, the whole army was equipped with it. . . . In their retreat from the Dannewerke into the Dt'ippel position, the Danes suffered severely from the inclemency of the weather, and fought a desperate rear-guard engagement with the Austrians. . . . The Prus- sians undertook the task of reducing Diippel ; the Austrians marched northward into Jutland, and driving back the Danish troops they en- countered in their march, sat down before the fortress of Fredericia, and swept the Little Belt with their cannon. The sieges, both of Di'ippel and of Fredericia, were conducted with extreme inertness." But the former was taken and the latter abandoned. " The Danish war was termi- nated by the Treaty of Vienna on the 30th Octo- ber, 1864, under which the duchies of Sleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg were handed over to the sovereigns of Austria and Prussia. . . . Out of the Danish war of 1864 grew almost inevita- bly the war of 1866, between Prussia and Aus- tria. The wolves quite naturally wrangled over the carcase. . . . 'The condominium of the two Powers in the duchies produced constant fric- tion, which was probably Bismarck's intention, especially as Prussia had taken care to keep stationed in them twice as many troops as Aus- tria had left there. Relations were becoming very strained when in August, 1865, the Em- peror Francis Joseph and King William met at the little watering-place of Gastein, and from their interview originated the short-lived ar- rangement known as the Convention of Gastein. By that compact, while the two Powers pre- served the common sovereignty over the duchies, Austria accepted the administration of Holstein, Prussia undertaking that of Sleswig. Prussia was to have rights of way through Holstein to Sleswig, was given over the right of construc- tion of a North Sea and Baltic Canal ; and while Kiel was constituted a Federal harbour, Prussia was authorised to construct there the requisite fortifications and marine establishments, and to maintain an adequate force for the protection of these. Assuming the arrangement to be pro- visional, as on all hands it was regarded, Prussia clearly had the advantage under it, . . , But the Gastein Convention contained another pro- vision — that Austria should sell to Prussia all her rights in the duchy of Lauenburg (an out- lying appanage of Holstein) for the sum of 2,500,000 thalers: thus making market of rights of which she was but a trustee for the Ger- man Confederation. The Convention of Gastein 1574 GERMANY, 1861-1866. Seven Weeks War. GERJVIANY, 1866. pleased nobody, but that mattered little to Bis- marck. . . . Bickerings recommenced before the year 1865 was out, and early in 1866 Austria began to arm. ... In M;>rch, 1866, a secret treaty was formed between Italy and Prussia. . . . Prussia threw the Convention of Gastein to the winds by civilly but masterfully turning the Austrian bri- gade of occupation out of Holstein. Then Austria in the Federal Diet, complaining that by this act Prussia had disturbed the peace of the German Confederation, moved for a decree of Federal execution against that state, to be enforced by the Confederation's armed strength. On the 14th June, Austria's motion was carried by the Diet, its last act ; for Prussia next day wrecked the flimsy organisation of the German Confedera- tion, by declaring war against three of its com- ponent members, Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. There was no formal declaration of war between Austria and Prussia, only a notification of in- tended hostile action sent by the Prussian com- manders to the Austrian foreposts. On the 17th the Emperor Francis Joseph published his war manifesto ; King William on the 18th emitted his to ' My People ; ' on the 20th, Italy declared war against Austria and Bavaria." — A. Forbes, William of Oermani/, c/i. 7-8. — See, also, Scan- dinavian States (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1863. Also in : H. von Sybel, T/ie Fonnding of the German Empire, bk. 9-16 {v. 3-4). — C. Lowe, Prince Bismarck, ch. 5-7 (?'. 1), and app. A, B, C{i\ S).— J. G. L. Hesekiel, Life of Bismnrck. bk. 5, ch. 3. — Count von Beust, Memoirs, v. 1, ch. 22-28. A. D. 1863.— First Socialist Party. See Social Movements : A. D. 1863-1864. A. D. 1866.— The Seven "Weeks War.— Defeat of Austria. — Victory and Supremacy of Prussia. — Her Absorption of Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Frankfort and Schleswig- Holstein. — Formation of the North German Confederation. — Exclusion of Austria from the Germanic organization. — "Prussia had built excellent railroads throughout the country, and quietly placed her troops on the frontier; within 14 days she had 500,000 men under arms. By the end of May they were on the frontiers ready for action, while Austria was only half prepared, and her allies only beginning to arm. On the 14th of June the diet, by a vote of nine to six, had ordered the immediate mobilization of a federal army ; whereupon Prussia declared the federal compact dissolved and extinguished. In Vienna and the petty courts men said, ' Within fourteen days after the outbreak of hostilities the allied armies will enter Berlin in triumph and dictate peace ; the power of Prussia will be broken by two blows. ' The Legitimists were exultant; even the majority of the democracy in South Germany joined with the Ultramontane party in sliouting for Austria. On the 10th of June, Bismark laid before the Ger- man governments the outlines of a new federal constitution, but was not listened to; onthel5tli he made proposals to the states in the immediate neighborhood of Prussia for a peace on these foundations, and demanded their neutrality, add- ing that if they declined his peaceful offers he would treat them as enemies. The cabinets of Dresden and Hanover, of Cassel and Wiesbaden, declined them. Immediately, on the night of the 15th and 16th of June, Prussian troops entered Hanover, Hesse and Saxony. In four or five days Prussia had disarmed all North Germany, and broken all resistance from tlie North Sea to the Main. On the 18th of June, the Prussian general Bayer entered Cassel ; the Elector was surprised at Wilhelmshohe. As he still refused all terms he was arrested by the direct order of the king of Prussia and sent as a prisoner to Stettin. On the 17th, General Vogel von Falkenstein entered Hanover. King George with his army of 18,000 men sought to escape to South Germany. After a gallant struggle at Langensalza on the 37th, his brave troops were surrounded. Tlie King capitulated on the 39th. His army was disbanded, he him- self allowed to go to Vienna. On the 18tli the Prussians were in Dresden ; on the 19th, in Leipzig; by the 20th, all Saxony except the fortress of Konigstein was in their hands. The king and army of Saxony, on the approach of the Prussians, had left the country by the rail- roads to Bohemia to form a junction with the Austrians. The Saxon army consisted of 33,000 men and 60 cannon. Every one had expected Austria to occupy a country of such strategic value as Saxony before the Prussians could touch it. The Austrian army consisted of seven corps, 180,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, 763 guns. The popular opinion had forced the emperor to make Benedek the commander-in- chief in Bohemia. Everything there was new to him. The Prussians were divided into three armies; the army of the Elbe, 40,000 men, under Herwarth von Bittenfeld; the first army, 100,000 men, under Prince Frederick Charles ; the second or Silesian army under the Crown Prince, 116,000 strong. The reserve consisted of 24,000 Laudwehr. The whole force in this quarter numbered 380,000 men and 800 guns. . . . The Prussians knew what they were fighting for. To the Austrians the idea of this war was some- thing strange. At Vienna, Benedek had spoken against war; after the first Prussian successes, he had in confidence advised the emperor to make peace as soon as possible. As he was un- able, from want of means, to attack, he con- centrated his army between Josephstadt and the county of Glatz. He thought only of defence. . . . On the 33rd of .lune the great Prussian army commenced contemporaneously its march to Bohemia from the Riesengebirge, from Lusatia, from Dresden. It advanced from four points to Josephstadt-Koniggriltz, where the junction was to take place. Bismarck had ordered, from financial as well as political reasons, that the war must be short. The Prussian armies had at all points debouched from the passes and entered iJohemia before a single Austrian corps had come near these passes. ... In a couple of days Benedek lost in a series of fights against the three Prussian advancing armies nearly 35,000 men; five of his seven corps had been beaten. He concentrated these seven corps at Koniggratz in the ground before this fortress; he determined to accept battle between the Elbe and the Bistritz. He had, however, previously reported to the emperor that his army after its losses was not in a condition for a pitched battle. He wished to retire to Moravia and avoid a battle till he had received reinforcements. This telegram of Benedek arrived in the middle of the exultation which filled the court of Vicuna after hearing of the victory over the Italians at Custozza [see 1575 GERJVIANY, 1866. The Seven Weeks War. GERMANY, 1866. Italy: A. D. 1863-1866]. The emperor replied by ordering liim briefly to give battle im- mediately. Beuedek, on the 1st of July, again sent word to the emperor, 'Your majesty must conclude peace.' Yet on these repeated warn- ings came tlie order to fight at once. Benedek had provided for such an answer by his arrange- ments for July the 2nd. He had placed his 500 guns in the most favorable positions, and occu- pied tlie country between the Elbe and the little river Bistritz for the extent of a league. As soon as the Prussians heard of this movement they resolved to attacli the Austrians on tlie 3d. On the 2d the king, accompanied by Count Bismarck, Von Roon and Von Moltke, had joined the army. He assumed command of the three armies. The Crown Prince and Herwarth were ordered to advance against KOniggratz. Part of the Crown Prince's army were still five German miles from the intended battle ground. Prince Frederick Charles and Herwartli had alone sustained the whole force of Austria in the struggle around Sadowa, which began at 8 o'clock in the morning. Frederick Charles attacked in the centre over against Sadowa ; Her- warth on the riglit at Nechanitz ; the Crown Prince was to advance on the left from Konigin- hof. The Crown Prince received orders at four o'clock in the morning ; he could not in all probability reach the field before one or two o'clock after noon. All depended on his arrival in good time. Prince Frederick Charles forced the passage of the Bistritz and took Sadowa and other places, but could not take the heights. His troops suffered terribly from the awful fire of the Austrian batteries. The King himself and his staff came under fire, from which the earnest entreaties of Bismarck induced him to retire. About one o'clock the danger in the Prussitin centre was great. After five hours of fighting they could not advance, and began to talk of retreat. On the right, things were better. Herwarth had defeated the Sa.xons, and threat- ened the Austrian left. Yet, if the army of the Crown Prince did not arrive, the battle was lost, for the Prussian centre was broken. But the Crown Prince brought the expected succor. About two o'clock came the news that a part of the Crown Prince's army had been engaged since one o'clock. The Austrians, attacked on their right flank and rear, had to give way in front. Under loud shouts of 'Forward,' Prince Fred- erick Charles took the Wood of Sadowa at three, and the heights of Lipa at four o'clock. At this very time, four o'clock, Benedek had already given orders to retreat. . . . From the . . . first the Prussians were superior to the Austrians in ammunition, provisions and supplies. They had a better organization, better preparation, and the needle-gun, which proved very destruc- tive to the Austrians. The Austrian troops fought with thorough gallantry. . . . Respect- ing this campaign, an Austrian writes: 'Given in Vienna a powerful coterie which reserves to itself all the high commands and regards the army as its private estate for its own private benefit, and defeat is inevitable.' The Austrians lost at Sadowa, according to the official accounts at Vienna, 174 cannon, 18,000 prisoners, 11 colors, 4,190 killed, 11,900 wounded, 21,400 missing, in- cluding the prisoners. The Prussians acknow- ledged a loss of only 10,000 men. The result of the battle was heavier for Austria than the loss in the action and the retreat. The armistice which Benedek asked for on the 4th of July was refused by the Prussians: a second request on the 10th was also rejected. On the 5th of July the emperor of Austria sought the mediation of France to restore peace. . . . All further move- ments were put a stop to by the five days' armistice, which began on the 32d of July at noon, and was followed by an armistice for four weeks. . . . Hostilities were at an end on Austrian territory when the war began on the Main against the allies of Austria. The Bavarian army, under the aged Prince Charles, dis- tinguished itself by being driven by the less numerous forces of Prussia under General Falkenstein across the Saale and the Main. . . . The eighth federal army corps of 50,000 men, composed of contingents from Baden, Wilrtera- berg. Electoral Hesse, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and 12,000 Austrians under Prince Alexander of Hesse, was so mismanaged that the Wiirtemberg contingent believed itself sold and betrayed. ... On the 16th of July, in the evening, Falkenstein entered Frankfort, and in the name of the king of Prussia took possession of this Free City, of Upper Hesse and Nassau. Frank- fort, on account of its Austrian sympathies, had to pay a contribution of six millions of gulden to Falkenstein, and on the 19th of July a further sum of nineteen millions to Manteuffel, the suc- cessor of Falkenstein. The latter sum was re- mitted when the hitherto Free City became a Prussian city. Manteuffel, in several actions from the 23d to the 26th of July, drove the federal army back to Wurzburg; GSben de- feated the army of Baden at Werbach, and that of Wiirtemberg at Tauberbischofsheim ; before this the eighth federal army corps joimed the Bavarian army, and on the 25tli and 26th of July the united forces were defeated at Gerschheim and Rossbrunn, and on the 27th, the citadel of Wurzburg was invested. The court of Vienna had abandoned its South German allies when it concluded the armistice ; it had not included its allies either in the armistice or the truce. . . . On the 29th of July, the Baden troops marched off homewards in the night, the Austrians marched to Bohemia, the Bavarians purchased an armistice by surrendering Wurzburg to the Prussians. Thus of the eighth army corps, the Wiirtembergers and Hessians alone kept the field. On the 2d of August these remains of the eighth army corps were included in the armistice of Nicholsburg. ... On the 23d of August peace was signed between Austria and Prussia at Prague. Bismarck treated Austria with great consideration, and demanded only twenty millions of thalers as war indemnity ; Wiirtemberg had to pay eight millions of gulden, Baden six millions, Hesse-Darmstadt three millions, Bavaria thirty millions of gulden. The Wiirtemberg minister, Varnbiller, and the Baden minister, Freydorf, offered to form an offensive and de- fensive alliance with Priissia for the purpose of saving the ruling families, and in alarm lest Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt might seek in their territories compensation for cessions to Prussia. Bavaria also formed an alliance with Prussia, and ceded a smull district in the north. Hesse-Darmstadt ceded Hesse-Hom- burg and some pieces of territory, and entered the North German Confederation, giving to Prussia the right of keeping a garrison in 1576 GERMANY" rtmn THE coNGRUs or VIENNA 1815. :> GKRMANY, 1866. Hegemony of Prussia. GERMANY, 1866-1870. Maiuz. Austria renounced her claims on Sclileswig and Holstein, acknowledged the dis- solution of the German Confederation and a modification of Germany by which Austria was excluded. It recognized the creation of the North German Confederation, the union of Venetia to Italy, the territorial alterations in North Germany. Prussia acknowledged the territorial possessions of Austria with the sole exception of Venetia ; and also of Saxony ; and undertook to obtain the assent of the King of Italy to the peace. Prussia announced the in- corporation of Scbleswig-Holstein, the Free City of Frankfort, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse, and the Duchy of Nassau, subject to the payment of annual incomes to the deposed princes. The Kingdom of Saxony, the twoMecklenburgs, the Hanse-towns, Oldenburg. Brunswick, and the Thuringian states entered the North German Confederation. Prussia now contained twenty-four millions of inhabitants, or including the Northern Confederation, twenty- nine millions. The military forces of the Con- federation were placed under the command of Prussia. The states north of the Main were at liberty to form a Southern Confederation, the connection of which with the Northern Con- federation was to be a subject of future discus- sion. Moreover, Bavaria, Baden and Wilrtera- berg had engaged ' in case of war to place their whole military force at the disposal of Prussia,' and Prussia guaranteed their sovereignty and the integrity of their territory. Saxony paid ten millions of thalers as a war indemnity. Prussia received on the whole, as war indemni- ties, eighty-two millions of gulden. Thus ended in the year 18G6 the struggle [known as the Seven Weeks War] between Austria and Prussia for the leadership of Germany." — W. Zimmer- mann, Popular Hist, of Oerinany, bk. 6, c/i. 3 (». 4). Also in : H. von Sybel, 77i^ Founding of the German Empire, bk. 17-30 (». 5). — Major C. Adams, O-reat Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870, ch. 10. — Count von Beust, Memoirs, v. 1, ch. 29-34.-6. B. Malleson, The Mefomiding of the Oerman Empire, ch. 6-10. A. D. 1866-1867. — Foreshadowings of the ne-w Empire. — "We may make the statement that in the autumn of 1866 the German Empire was founded. . . . The Southern States were not yet members of the Confederation, but were already, to use an old expression, relatives of the Confederation (Bundesverwandte) in virtue of the offensive and defensive alliances with Prus- sia and of the new organization of the Tariff- Union. . . . The natural and inevitable course of events must here irresistibly break its way, luiless some circumstance not to be foreseen should throw down the barriers beforehand. How soon such a crisis might take place no one could at that time estimate. But in regard to the certainty of the final result there was in Germany no longer any doubt. . . . Three-fourths of the territory of this Empire was dominated by a Government that was in the first place eflicieut in military organization, guided by the firm hand of King William, coun- selled by the representatives of the North Ger- man Sovereigns, and recognized by all the Powers of Europe. The opening of that Parliament was near at hand, that should in common with this Government determine the limitations to be placed upon the powers of the Confederation in its rela- tion to the individual states and also the functions of the new Reichstag in the legislation and in the control of the finances of the Confederation. . . . It was, in the first place, certain that the functions of tlie future supreme Confederate authority would be in general the same as those specified in the Imperial Constitution of 1849. . . . The most radical difference between 1849 and 1866 consisted in the form of the Confederate Govern- ment. The former period aimed at the appoint- ment of a Constitutional and hereditary emperor, with respon.sible ministers, to the utter exclusion of the German sovereigns: whereas now the plan included all of these sovereigns in a Confederate Council (Bundesrath) organized after the fashion of the old Confederate Diet, with committees for the various branches of the administration, and under the presidency of the King of Prussia, who should occupy a superior position in virtue of the conduct, placed in his hands once for all, of the foreign policy, the army and the navy, but who otherwise in the Confederate Council, in spite of the increase of his votes, could be outvoted like every other prince by a decree of the Majority. . . . Before the time of the peace-conferences, when all definite arrangements of Germany's future seemed suspended in the balance and un- decided, the Crown Prince Frederick William, who ill general had in mind for the supreme head of the Confederation a higher rank and position of power than did the King, maintained that his father should bear the title of King of Germany. Bismarck reminded him that there were other Kings in Germany: the Kings of Hanover, of Saxony, etc. 'The.se,' was the reply, ' will then take the title of Dukes.' 'But they will not agree to that. ' ' They will have to ! ' cried His Royal Highness. After the further course of events, the Crown Prince indeed gave up his proj- ect; but in the early part of 1867 he asserted that the King should assume the title of German Emperor, arguing that the people would connect no tangible idea with the title of President of the Confederation, whereas the renewal of the im- perial dignity would represent to them the actual incorporation of the unity finally attained, and the remembrance of the old glory and power of the Empire would kindle all hearts. This Idea, as we have experienced and continue to experience its realization, was in itself perfectly correct. But it was evidently at that time premature: a North German empire would have aroused no enthusiasm in the north, and would have seriously hindered the accomplishment of the national aim in the south. King William rejected this propo- sition very decidedly : in his own simple way he wished to be nothing more than Confederate Commander-in-chief and the first among his peers." — H. von Sybel, The Founding of the German Emjnre by William I., bk. 20, ch. 4 {v. 5). A. D. 1866-1870. — Territorial concessions demanded by France. — Rapid progress of German unification. — The Zollparlament. — The Luxemburg question. — French determina- tion for war. — "The conditions of peace . . . left it open to the Southern States to choose what relationship they would form with the Northern Confederation. This was a compromise between Bismarck and Napoleon, the latter fearing a United Germany, the former preferring to restrict himself to what was attainable at the time, and taking care not to humiliate or seriously to injure 1577 GERMANY, 1866-1870. lYussia and France. GERMANY, 1866-1870. Austria, whose friendship he foresaw that Germany would need. Meanwhile Napoleon's interference continiied. Scarcely had Benedetti, who had followed Bismarck to the battle-fields, returned to Berlin, when he received orders from his Government to demand not less than the left bank of the Rhine as a compensation for Prussia's increase of territory. For this purpose he submitted the draft of a treaty by which Prussia was even to bind herself to lend an active support to the cession of the Bavarian and Hessian possessions west of the Rhine! . . . Bismarck would listen to no mention of ceding German territory. 'Si vous refusez,' said the conceited Corsican, ' c'est la guerre. ' — 'Ehbien, la guerre,' replied Bismarck calmly. Just as little success had Benedetti with King William. ' Not a clod of German soil, not a chimney of a German village,' was William's kingly reply. Napoleon was not disposed at the time to carry out his threat. He disavowed Benedetti's action, declaring that the instructions had been obtained from him during his illness and that he wished to live in peace and friendship with Prussia. Napoleon's covetousness had at least one good effect : it furthered the work of German union. Bavaria and Wilrtemberg, who during the war had sided with Austria, had at first appealed to Napoleon to mediate between them and Prussia. But when the Ministers of the four South Ger- man States appeared at Berlin to negotiate with Bismarck, and Benedetti's draft-treaty was com- municated to them, there was a complete change of disposition. They then wished to go much further than the Prussian Statesman was pre- pared to go: they asked, in order to be protected from French encroachments, to be admitted into the North German Confederation. But Bismarck would not depart from the stipulations of the Treaty of Nikolsburg. The most important re- sult of the negotiations was that secret treaties were concluded by which the Southern States bound themselves to an alliance with the Northern Confederation for the defence of Germany, and engaged to place their troops under the supreme command of the Prussian King in the event of any attack by a foreign Power. In a military sense Klein- Deutschland was now one, though not yet politically. . . . That Prussia was the truly representative Ger- man State had been obvious to the thoughtful long before : the fact now stood out in clear light to all who would open their eyes to see. Prog- ress had meanwhile been made with the con- struction of the North German Confederation, which embraced all the States to the north of the river Main. Its affairs were to be regulated by a Reichstag elected by universal suffrage and by a Federal Council formed of the representa- tives of the North German Governments. In a military sense it was a Single State, politically a Confederate State, with the King of Prussia as President. This arrangement was not of course regarded as final: and in his speech from the throne to the North German Reichstag, King William emphasized the declaration that Ger- many, so long torn, so long powerless, so long the theatre of war for foreign nations, would henceforth strive to recover the greatness of her past. ... A first step towards ' bridging over the Main,' i. e., causing South and North to join hands again, was taken by the creation of a Zollparlament, or Customs Parliament, which was elected by the whole of Klein-Deutschland, and met at Berlin, henceforth the capital of Germany. It was also a step in advance that Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt signed conventions, by which their military system was put on the same footing as that of the North German Con- federation. Baden indeed would willingly have entered into political union with the North, had the same disposition prevailed at the time in the other South German States. The National Liberals however had to contend with strong opposition from the Democrats in Wilrtemberg, and from the Ultramontanes in Bavaria. The latter were hostile to Prussia on account of her Protestantism, the former on account of the stern principles and severe discipline that pervaded her administration. ... In the work of German unification the Bonapartes have an important share. . . . By outraging the principle of nationality. Napoleon I. had re-awakened the feeling of nationality among Germans : Napoleon III., by attempting to prevent the unification of Germany, actually hastened it on. . . . When King William had replied that he would not yield up an inch of German soil, ' patriotic pangs ' at Prussian successes and the thirst for ' compensation ' continued to disturb the sleep of the French Emperor, and as he was unwilling to appear baffled in his purpose, he returned to the charge. On the 16th of August, 1866, through his Ambassador Benedetti, he demanded the cession of Landau, Saarbrilcken, Saarlouis, and Luxemburg, together with Prussia's con- sent to the annexation of Belgium by France. If that could not be obtained, he would be satis- fied with Luxemburg and Belgium; he would even exclude Antwerp from the territory claimed that it might be created a free town. Thus he hoped to spare the susceptibilities of England. As a gracious return he offered the alliance of France. After his first interview Benedetti gave up his demand for the three German towns, and submitted a new scheme, according to which Germany should induce the King of the Nether- lands to a cession of Luxemburg, and should support France in the conquest of Belgium; whilst, on his part, Napoleon would permit the formation of a federal union between the Northern Confederation and the South German States, and would enter into a defensive and offensive alliance with Germany. Count Bis- marck treated these propositions, as he himself has stated, ' in a dilatory manner,' that is to say, he did not reject them, but he took good care not to make any definite promises. When the Prussian Prime Minister returned from his furlough to Berlin, towards the end of 1866, Benedetti resumed his negotiations, but now only with regard to Luxemburg, still garrisoned by Prussian troops as at the time of the old Germanic Confederation. Though the Grand- Duchy of Luxemburg did not belong to the new North German Confederation, Bismarck was not willing to allow it to be annexed by France. Moltke moreover declared that the fortress could only be evacuated by the Prussian troops if the fortifications were razed. But without its fortifications Napoleon would not have it. And when, with regard to the Em- peror's intentions upon Belgium, Prussia offered no active support, but only promised observance of neutrality, France renounced the idea of an alliance with Prussia, and entered into direct 1578 GERMANY, 1866-1870. Germanic Confederation. GERMANY, 1871. negotiations with the King of Holland, as Grand-Duke of Luxemburg. Great excitement was thereby caused in Germany, and, as a time- ly warning to France, Bismarcli surprised the world with the publication of the secret treaties between Prussia and the South German States. But when it became known that the King of Holland was actually consenting to the sale of his rights in Luxemburg to Napoleon, there was so loud a cry of indignation in all parts of Ger- many, there was so powerful a protest in the North German Parliament against any sale of German territory by the King of Holland, that Count Bismarck, himself surprised at the vigour of the patriotic outburst, declared to the Govern- ment of the Hague that the cession of Luxem- burg would he considered a casus belli. This peremptory declaration had the desired effect: the cession did not take place. This was the first success in European politics of a united Germany, united not yet politically, but in spirit. That was satisfactory. A Conference of the Great Powers then met in London [May, 1867] : by its decision, Luxemburg was separated from Germany, and, — to give some kind of satisfac- tion to the Emperor of the French, — was formed into a neutral State. From a national point of view, that was unsatisfactory. . . . The danger of an outbreak of war between France and Ger- many had only been warded off for a time by the international settlement of the Luxemburg question. ... In the early part of July, 1870, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, at the request of the Spanish Government, became a candidate for the Spanish throne. Napoleon III. seized the occasion to carry into effect his hostile intentions against Germany. " — G. Krause, The Orowtli of Oermaii Unity, ch. 13-14. Also in: E. Simon, The Emperor William and his Reign, ch. 9-10 (v. 1).— C. A. Fyffe, Hist, of Modern Europe, v. 3, ch. 5-6. A. D. 1870 (June— July).— " The Hohenzol- lern incident." — French Declaration of War. SeeFKAKCE: A. D. 1870 (Jlwe— July). A. D. 1870 (September— December).— The Germanic Confederation completed. — Feder- ative treaties with the states of South Ger- many. — Suggestion of the Empire. — "Having decided on taking Strasburg and Metz from France" Prussia "could only justify that con- quest by considerations of the safety of South Germany, and she could only defend these inter- ests by effecting the union of North and South. She found it necessary to realise this union at any price, even by some concessions in favour of the autonomy of those States, and especially of Bavaria. Such was the spirit in which negotia- tions were opened, in the middle of September, 1870, between Bavaria and Prussia, with the par- ticipation of Baden, Wurtemberg and Hesse- Darmstadt. . . . Prussia asked at first for entire and unreserved adhesion to the Northern Confed- eration, a solution acceptable to Baden, Wurteni- berg and Hesse-Darmstadt, but not to Bavaria, who demanded for herself the preservation of certain rights, and for her King a privileged position in the future Confederation next to the King of Prussia. The negotiations with Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt came to a conclusion on the 15th of November; and on the 25th, Wurteni- berg accepted the same arrangement. These three States agreed to the constitution, slightly modified, of the Northern Confederation; the new treaties were completed by military conven- tions, establishing the fusion of the respective Corps d'Armee with the Federal Army of the North, under the command of the King of Prus- sia. The Treaty with Bavaria was signed at Versailles on the 23rd of November. The con- cessions obtained by the Cabinet of Munich were reduced to mere trifles. . . . The King of Bavaria was allowed the command of his army in time of peace. He was granted the administration of the Post-Oflice and partial autonomy of indirect contributions. A committee was conceded, in the Federal Council, for Foreign Affairs, under the Presidency of Bavaria. The right of the King of Prussia, as President of this Council, to declare war, was made conditional on its con- sent. Such were the Treaties submitted on the 24th of November to the sanction of the Parlia- ment of the North, assembled in an Extraordi- nary Session. Thejf met with intense opposition from the National Liberal and from the Progres- sive Party," but "the Parliament sanctioned the treaties on the 10th of December. According to the Treaties, the new association received the title of Germanic Confederation, and the King of Prussia that of its President. These titles were soon to undergo an important alteration. The King of Bavaria, satisfied with the concessions, more apparent than real, made by the Prussian Cabinet to his rights of sovereignty, consented to defer to the wishes of King William. On the 4th of December, King Louis addressed him [King William] a letter, informing him that he had invited the Confederate sovereigns to revive the German Empire and confer the title of Em- peror on the President of the Confederation. . . . The sovereigns immediately gave their consent, so that the Imperial titles could be introduced into the new Constitution before the final vote of the Parliament of the North. ... To tell the truth, King William attached slight importance to the votes of the various Chambers. He was not de- sirous of receiving his new dignity from the hands of a Parliament ; the assent of the sover- eigns was in his eyes far more es.sential." — E. Simon, The Emperor William and his Beign, ch. 13 (». 2). Also en: G. Freytag, The Croxcn Prince and the Imperial Crown. A. D. 1870-1871.— Victorious war with France. — Siege of Paris. — Occupation of the city. — Enormous indemnity exacted. — Acqui- sition of Alsace and part of Lorraine. See Fkance: a. D. 1870 (July— August) to 1871 (.Jajju.^ry — May). A. D. 1871 (January). — Assumption of the Imperial dignity by King William, at Ver- sailles. — "Early in December the proposition came from King Ludwig of Bavaria to King William, that the possession of the presidential rights of the Confederacy vested in the Prussian monarch should be coupled with the imperial title. The King of Saxony spoke to the same purport; and in one day a measure providing for the amendment of the Constitution by the sub- stitution of the words ' Emperor ' and ' Empire ' for ' President ' and ' Confederation ' was passed through the North German Parliament, which voted also an address to his Majesty, from which the following is an extract: 'The North German Parliament, in unison with the Princes of Ger- many, approaches with the prayer that your Majesty will deign to consecrate the work of 1579 GERMANY, 1871. The neio Empire. GERMANY, 1871-1879. unification by accepting the Imperial Crown of Germany. The Teutonic Crown on the head of your Majesty will inaugurate, for the re-estab- lished Empire of the German nation, an era of power, of peace, of well-being, and of liberty secured under the protection of the laws. ' Tlie address of the German Parliament was presented to the King at Versailles on Sunday, the 18th of December, by its speaker, Herr Simson, who, as speaker of the Frankfort Parliament in 1848, had made the identical proffer to William's brother and predecessor [see above: A. D. 1848-1850]. . . . The formal ratification of assent to the Prussian King's assumption of the imperial dig- nity had yet to be received from the minor Ger- man States; but this was a foregone conclusion, and the unification of Germany really dates from that 18th of December, and from the solemn ceremonial in the prefecture of Versailles. " — A. Forbes, William of Oermany, ch. 13. — King Wil- liam's formal assumption of the Imperial dignity took place on the 18th of January, 1871. "The Crown Prince was entrusted with all the prepa- rations for the ceremony. Every regiment in the army of investment was instructed to send its colours in charge of an officer and two non- commissioned oflicers to Versailles, and all tlie liigher officers who could be spared from duty were ordered to attend, for tlie army was to represent the German nation at this memorable scene. The Crown Prince escorted his father from the Prefecture to the palace of Versailles, where all the German Princes or their represen- tatives were assembled in the Galerie des Glaces. A special service was read by the military chap- lains, and then the Emperor, mounting on the dais, announced his a.ssumption of Imperial au- thority, and instructed his Chancellor to read the Proclamation issued to the whole German nation. Then the Crown Prince, as the first subject of the Empire, came forward and performed the solemn act of homage, kneeling down before liis Imperial Fatlier. The Emperor raised him and clasped to his arms the son who had toiled and fought and borne so great a share in achieving what many generations had desired in vain." — R. Rodd, Frederick, Crown Prince and Umperor, ch. 5. Also in: C. Lowe, Prince Bismarck, ch. 9 (V. 1). A. D. 1871 (April).— The Constitution of the new Empire. — By a proclamation dated April 16, 1871, the German Emperor ordered, "in the name of the German Empire, by and with the consent of the Council of the Confederation and of the Imperial Diet," that "in the place of the Constitution of the German Confederation," as agreed to in November 1870, tlicre be substituted a Constitution for the German Empire, — the text of which appeared as an appendi.x to this im- perial decree. For a full translation of the te.xt see Constitution op Germany. Also in : E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe hy TreMy, v. 3, A'». 442. A. D. 1871-1873.— The Gold Standard. See Monet .\ni) B.\nking : A. I). 1871-1873. A. D. 1871-1879.— Organization of the gov- ernment of Alsace-Lorraine as an imperial province. — "How to garner the territorial har- vest of the war — Alsace-Lorraine — was a ques- tion which greatly vexed the pru'liamentary mind. Several possible solutions had presented them- selves. The conquered provinces might be made neutral territory, which, with Belgium on one side, and Switzerland on the other, would thus interpose a continuous barrier against French aggression from the mouth of the Rhine to its source. But one fatal objection, among several others, to the adoption of this course, was the utter lack, in the Alsace-Lorrainers, of the primary condition of the existence of all neutral States — a determination on the part of the neutralised people themselves to be and remain neutral. And none knew better than Bismarck that it would take 3'ears of the most careful nursing to recon- cile the kidnapped children of France to their adoptive parent. For him, the only serious ques- tion was whether Alsace-Lorraine should be an- nexed to Prussia, or be made an immediate Reichsland (Imperial Province). ' From the very first,' he said, ' I was most decidedly for the latter alternative, first — because there is no reason why dynastic questions should be mixed up with political ones ; and, secondly ■ — ■ because I think it will be easier for the Alsatians to take to the name of " German " than to that of "Prussian," the latter being detested in France in comparison with the other. ' In its first session, accordingly, the Diet was .Tsked to pass a law incorporating Alsace-Lorraine with the Empire, and placing the annexed provinces under a provisional dic- tatorship till tlie 1st January, 1874, when they would enter into the enjoyment of constitutional rights in common with the rest of the nation. But the latter clause provoked much controversy. ... A compromise was ultimately effected by which the duration of the dictatorship, or jjcriod within which the Imperial Government alone was to liavc the right of making laws for Alsace-Lor- raine, was shortened till 1st January, 1873 ; while the Diet, on the other hand, w'as only to have supervision of such loans or guarantees as affected the Empire. In the following year, however, the Diet came to the conclusion that, after all, the original term fixed for the dictatorship was the more advisable of the two, and prolonged it ac- cordingly. For the next three years, therefore, the Reichsland was governed from the Wilhelm- strasse, as India is ruled from Downing Street. . . . In the beginning of 1874 . . . fifteen depu- ties from Alsace-Lorraine — now thus far ad- mitted within the pale of the Constitution — took their seats in the second German Parliament. Of these fifteen deputies, five were out-and-out French Protesters, and the rest Clericals — seven of the latter being clergymen, including the Bishops of Metz and Strasburg. They entered the Diet in a body, with much theatrical pomp, the clergy wearing their robes ; and one of the French Protesters — bearingthe vmfortunatoname of Teutsch — immediately tabled a motion that the inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine, having been annexed to Germany without being themselves consulted, should now be granted an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject by a plebiscite. . . . The motion of French M. Teutsch, who spoke fluent German, was of course rejected ; whereupon he and several of his compatriots straightway returned home, and left the Diet to deal with the interests of their constituents as it liked. Those of his colleagues who remained be- hind only did so to complain of the ' intolerable tyranny ' under which the provinces were groan- ing, and to move for the repeal of the law (of December, 1871) which invested the local Gov- ernment with dictatorial powers. . . . Believing 1580 GERMANY, 1871-1879. The Culturkampf. GERiyiANY, 1873-1887. home-rule to be one of the best guarantees of federal cohesion, Bismarck determined to try the effect of this cementing agency on the newest Bart of the Imperial edifice; and, m the autumn of 1874 he advised the Emperor to grant tne Alsace-Lorrainers (not by law, but by ordinance, which could easily be revolied) a previous voice on all bills to be submitted to the Reichstag on the domestic and fiscal affairs of the Provinces. In the following summer (June, 1875), there- fore there met at Strasburg the first Landesaus- schuss or Provincial Committee, composed of delegates, thirty in number, from the administra- ?ive^District Councils. ... So ^vell, indeed on the whole, did this arrangement work that witnm two years of its creation the Landesausschuss was invested with much broader powers . . Thus it came about that, while the Reichsland continued to be governed from Berhn, the mak- ing of its laws was more and more confined to Stfasbure. . . . The party of the Irreconcilables had been gradually giving way to the Autono- ndsts, or those who subordinated the question of nationality to that of home-rule RaPKUy gain- iuo- in strength, this latter party at last (in the sprin- of 1879) petitioned the Reichstag for an independent Government, with its seat m Stras- burcr for the representation of the Reichsland in tlie Federal Council, and for an enlargement of the functions of the Provincial Committee. Noth- ing could have been more gratifying to Bismarck thSn this request, amounting, as it did, to a re- luctant recognition of the Treaty of Frankfort on the part of the Alsace-Lorrainers. He therefore replied that he was quite willing to confer on tlie provinces ' the highest degree of independence compatible with the military secunty of the Em- pire ' The Diet, without distinction of part} applauded his words; and not only that but it hastened to pass a bill embodying ideas at ^^ Inch the Chancellor himself had hinted in the previous vear By this bill, the government of Alsace- Lorraine was to centre in a Stattlialter, or Im- perial Viceroy, living at Strasburg, it^tead of, as heretofore, in the chancellor. . . . Without be- ing a Sovereign, this Statthalter was to. exercise all but sovereign rights. . . . For this high office the Emperor selected the brilliant soldier-states- man. Marshal Manteuffel Certainly His Maiesty could not possibly have chosen a better man for the responsible office, which the Marshal assumed on the 1st October, 1879. Heucetorth the conquered provinces entered an entirely ne^v phase of their existence. . . . Whether the Reichs- land will ever ripen into an integral part ot Prussia, or into a regular Federal State with a Prussian prince for its Sovereign the future alone can show."-C. Lowe, Pnnce Bismarcl, ch. AD 187V1887.— The Culturkampf.— The " May Laws " and their repeal.-" The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its illus- trious chief promoter is said to have named it, may equally well be styled the religion combat, or education strife. . . . The arena of the Cul- turkampf in Germany is, strictly speaking Prus- sia and Hesse Darmstadt— pre-eminently the for- mer. According to the last census, taken Decem- ber 1 1880, the population of Prussia is 27,2/8,911. Of these, the Protestants are 17,645 462 bemg 64 7 per cent., and the Cathohcs 9,305,136 or 34' 1 per cent., of the total population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to qfiq 7q0 or 1 334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January, 1873,^hat Dr. Falk, Minister of Public Worship, first introduced into the Prussian Diet the bills, which were afterwards to be known as the May Laws [so called ^ecause they were generally passed m the f oftl^ °f, J^^,{' although in different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future, were to regu- late the relations of Church and State, purported to apply to the Evangelical or united Protestant State Church of Prussia . . as well as to the Catholic Church. Their professed mam fbjerts were • first, to insure greater liberty to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to se- cure a German and national, rather than an Ul- tramontane ' and non-national, training for the clergy and, thirdly, to protect the infenor clerly against the tyranny of their supenors- whidi simply meant, as proved in the ?equel the withdrawal of priests and people, in matters Tplritual, from the jurisdiction of the bishops and the separation of Cathohc_Pr_ussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State regulation, for a flounshmg branch of the Universal Church. To promote these objects, it was provided, that all Ecclesiastical semmanes should be placed under State control ; and that all candidates for the priesthood shou d pass a State examination in the usual subjects of a liberal education; and it was further provided, that the State should have the right to confirm or to reject all appointments of clergy. These bills were readily passed: and all the religious orders and congregations were suppressed with the provis- ional Exception of those which devoted them- selves to the care of the sick; and al Catholic seminaries were closed. . . . The Bishops re- fused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could not accept; and they subscribed a col- lective declaration to this effect, on the 26th of Mav 1873. On the 7th of August following. Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of remon- strance to the Emperor William ; but entirely without effect, as may be seen in the Imperial re- ply of the 5th of September. In punishrnent of their opposition, several of the Bishops and great numbers of their clergy were fined, imprisoned, exiled and deprived of their salaries. Especially notable among the victims of persecution, were the venerable Archbishop of Cologne Prinaate of Prussia, the Bishop of Munster the Pnnce Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of Paderbom, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardmal_s hat was conferred by the Pope, in March 18. 0, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement, and ap- proval The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,585 souls. They were admin- . istfred by 4,627 parish-priests, and 3,813 coadju^ tor-priests, or curates, bemg a total of 8,4d» clergy Eight years later, owing to the opera- tion of the May Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770 of these clergy, viz 1 135 parish-priests, and 645 coadjutor- priests;' and there were 601 parishes comprising 644 697 souls, quite destitute of clencal care, and 584 parishes, or 1,501,994 souls partialy destitute thereof. Besides these 1,770 sewlar priests, dead or exiled, and not replaced there were the regular clergy (the members of rehgious 1581 GERMANY, 1873-1887. Frederick HI. and William XL GERMANY, 1888. orders), all of whoni had been expelled." — J. N. Murphy, The Chair of Peter, ch. 29. — "Why- was the Kulturkampf undertaken? This is a question often asked, and answered in different ways. That Ultramontanism is a danger to the Empire is the usual explanation; but proof is not producible. . . . Ultramontanism, as it is understood in France and Belgium, has never taken root in Germany. It was represented by the Jesuits, and when they were got rid of, Catholicism remained as a religion, but not as a political factor. . . . The real purpose of the Kulturkampf has been, I conceive, centralisation. It has not been waged against the Roman Church only, for the same process has been followed with the Protestant Churches. It was intolerable in a strong centralising Government to have a Calvinist and a Lutheran Church side by side, and both to call themselves Protestant. It interfered with systematic and neat account-keeping of pub- lic expenditure for religious purposes. Conse- quently, in 1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their ruins, with con- stitution and liturgy chiefly of his own drawing up. The Protestant churches of Baden, Nassau, Hesse, and the Bavarian Palatinate have also been fused and organised on the Prussian pattern. In Schleswig-Holstein and in Hanover existed pure Lutherans, but they, for uniformity's sake, have been also recently unified and melted into the Landeskirche of Prussia. A military govern- ment cannot tolerate any sort of double allegiance in its subjects. Education and religion, medicine and jurisprudence, telegraphs and post-office, must be under the jurisdiction of the State. . . . From the point of view of a military despotism, the May laws are reasonable and necessary. As Germany is a great camp, the clergy, Protestant and Catholic, must be military chaplains amen- able to the general in command. ... I have no doubt whatever that this is the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other explana- tions are excuses and inventions. . . . The Chan- cellor, when he began the crusade, had probably no idea of the opposition he would meet with, and when the opposition manifested itself, it irritated him, and made him more dogged in pur- suing his scheme. " — S. Baring-Gould, Oermany, Present and PaU, ch. 13 (». 2). — "The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on their own ground, and acting together in com- plete agreement, succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely re- fused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted upon the Church regulating its own theological education. Prussia and Baden be- came weary of the contest. In 1880 and 1881 the ' May Laws ' were suspended, and, after ne- gotiation with Leo XIII., they were to a large extent repealed. By this change, completed in April, 1887, the obligations of civil marriage and the vesting of Catholic property in the hands of lay trustees were retained, but the legis- lative interference with the administration of the Church, including the education required for the priesthood, was wholly abandoned. The Prussian Government had entirely miscalculated its power with the Church." — The same. The Church in Oermany, ch. 21. — By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which ex- isted before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to be allowed to re-establish them- selves, i:)rovided their objects were purely reli- gious, charitable, or contemplative. . . . The Society of .Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included in this permission. But Prince Bis- marck's determination never to readmit the Jesu- its is well known. . . . The Bill left very few vestiges of the May laws remaining." — Annual Register, 1887, pt. 1, p. 245. See Papacy : A. D. 1870-1874. Also in : C. Lowe, Prince Bisinnrck, ch. 12-13. A. D. 1878-1879.— Adoption of the Protec- tive policy. See Tariff Legislation (Ger- many) : A. D. 18.53-1893. A. D. 1878-1893.— The Socialist Parties.— Socialistic Measures. See Social Move- ments : A. D. 187.1-1893 ; 1883-1889. A. D. 1882.— The Triple Alliance. See TiiiPLB Alliance. A. D. 1884-1894. — Colonization in Africa.— Territorial seizures. — The Berlin Conference. See Afuk-a : A. D. 1883; 1884-1891 ; and after. A. D. 1888.— Death of the Emperor William 1. — Accession and death of Frederick III. — Accession of William II. — The Emperor Wil- liam died on the 9th of March, 1888. He was succeeded by his son, proclaimed under the title of Frederick III. The new Emperor was then at San Remo, undergoing treatment for a mortal malady of the throat. He returned at once to Berlin, where an unfavorable turn of the disease soon appeared. " Consequently an Imperial de- cree, dated the 21st of March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and publislied, expressing the wish of the Emperor that the Prince should make himself conversant with the affairs of State by immediate participation therein. His Imperial Highness was accordingly entrusted with the preparation and discharge of such State business as the Emperor should assign to him, and he was empowered in the performance of this duty to affix all necessary signatures, as the representa- tive of the Emperor, without obtaining an es- pecial authorisation on each occasion. . . . The insidious malady from which the Emperor suf- fered exhibited many fluctuations," but the end came on the 15th of June, his reign having lasted only three months. He was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Emperor William II. — Eminent Persons : Biographies reprinted from 27ie Times, d. 4, pp. 112-115. Also IN: R. Rodd, Frederick, Crown, Prince and Emperor. — G. Freytag, The Crown Prince. A. D. 1888.— The end of the Free Cities.— "The last two cities to uphold the name and traditions of the Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Bremen, have been incorporated into the German Zoll Verein, thus finally surrendering their old historical privileges as free ports. Lu- beck took this step some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till October, 1888 — so long had they resisted Prince Bis- marck's more or less gentle suasions to enter his Protection League. . . . They, and Hamburg in particular, held out nobly, jealous, and rightly jealous, of the curtailment of those privileges which distinguished them from the other cities of the German Empire. It was after the foun- dation of this empire that the claim of the two cities to remain free ports was conceded and ratified in the Imperial Constitution of April, 1871, though the privilege, in the case of Ham- burg, was restricted to the city and port, and 1582 GERMANY, 1888. Bismarck and William IJ. GERMANY, 1889-1890. withdrawn from the rest of the State, which ex- tends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square miles, while the free-port terri- tory was reduced to 28 square miles. This was the first serious interference with the city's liberty, and others followed, perhaps rather of a petty, annoying, than of a seriously aggressive, charac- ter, but enough to show the direction in which the wind was blowing. It was in 1880 that the proposal to include Hamburg in the Customs Union was first politically discussed. ... In May, 1881, . . . was drafted a proposal to the effect that the whole of the city and port of Hamburg should be included in the Zoll Verein." After long and earnest discussion the proposition was adopted by the Senate and the House of Burgesses. "The details for carrying into effect this conclusion have occupied seven years, and the event was finally celebrated with great pomp, the Emperor William II. coming in person to enhance the solemnity of the sacrifice brought by the burghers of the erst free city for the com- mon weal of the German Fatherland. . . . The last and only privilege the three once powerful Hanseatic cities retain is that of being entitled, like the greatest States in the empire, to send their own representatives to the Bundesrath and to the Reichstag." — H. Ziramern, The Eanaa Towns, period 3, ch. 8, note. A. D. 1 888-1 889. — Prussian Free School laws. See Education, Modern: Europban Countries. — Prussia: 1885-1889. A. D. 1889-1890. — Rupture between Em- peror William II. and Chancellor Bismarck. — Retirement of the great Chancellor. — Soon after the accession of William II. , signs of discord be- tween the young Emperor and the veteran states- man, Chancellor Bismarck, began to appear. "In March, 1889, the Minister of Finance had drawn up a Bill for the reform of the income tax, which had been sanctioned by the Emperor ; sud- denly Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the agrarian interest, and the Land- tag, summoned expressly to vote that Bill, was dismissed ' re inacta. ' Count Waldersee, the Chief of the General Staff, an eminent and independent man, and standing high in favour, had for years been a thorn in the Chancellor's side, who looked upon him as a possible rival ; he had tried to over- throw him under Frederic III., but had not suc- ceeded, Moltke protesting that the general was indispensable to the army. When Waldersee, in the summer of 1889, accompanied the Emperor to Norway, a letter appeared in the Hamburger Nachrichten, to the effect that in a Memoir he had directed his sovereign's attention to the threatening character of the Russian armaments, and had advised, in contradiction to the Chancel- lor's policy, the forcing of war upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a tele- graphic denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such a Memoir ; but the Nach- richten registered this declaration in a garbled form and in small type, and the Norddeutsche Zeitung, which at the same time had published an article, to the effect that according to General von Clausewitz, war is only the continuation of a certain policy, and that therefore the Chief of the General Staff must needs be under the order of the Foreign Minister, took no notice of the Count's protest. ... In the winter session of the Reichstag the Government presented a Bill tending to make the law against Social- Democracy a permanent one, but even the pliant National Liberals objected to the clause that the police should be entitled to expel Social-Democrats from the large towns. They would have been ready to grant that permission for two years, but the Government did not accept this, and the Bill fell to the ground. The reason, which at that time was not generally understood, was, that there ex- isted already a hitch between the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had ar- rived at the conviction that the law against Social Democrats was not only barren, but had increased their power. This difference was accentuated by the Imperial decree of February 4 in favour of the protection of children's and women's labour, which the Chancellor had steadily resisted, and by the invitation of an international conference for that end. Prince Bismarck resigned the Ministry of Commerce, and was replaced by Herr von Berlepsch, who was to preside at the conference. The elections for the Reichstag were now at hand, a new surprise was expected for maintaining the majority obtained by the cry of 1887; but it did not come, and the result was a crushing defeat of the Chancellor. Perhaps even then the Emperor had discerned that he could not go on with Bis- marck, and that it would be difficult to get rid of him, if he obtained another majority for five years. At least it seems certain that William II. already in the beginning of February had asked General von Caprivi whether he would be ready to take the Chancellor's place. Affairs were now rapidly pushing to a crisis. Bismarck asked the Emperor that, in virtue of a Cabinet order of 1852, his colleagues should be bound to submit beforehand to him any proposals of political importance before bringing it to the cognizance of the Sovereign. The Emperor refused, and insisted upon that order being cancelled. The last drop which made the cup overflow was an interview of the Chancellor with Windthorst. The Emperor, calling upon Bismarck the next morning, asked to hear what had passed in that conversation ; the Chancellor declined to give any account of it, as he could not submit his in- tercourse with deputies to any control, and added that he was ready to resign." — The Change of Gov- ernment in Germany (Fortnightly Review, Au- gust, 1890), pp. 301-304.— "Early on the 17th of March the Emperor sent word that he was waiting for Bismarck's resignation. The Prince refused to resign, on grounds of conscience and of self-respect. . . . The Emperor must dismiss him. A second messenger came, in the course of the day, with a direct order from the Emperor that the Prince should send in his resignation within a given number of hours. At the same time Bismarck was informed that the Emperor intended to make him Duke of Lauenburg. The Prince responded that he might have had that title before if he had wished it. He was then assured (referring to the grounds on which he had previously declined the title) that the Em- peror would pledge himself to secure such a legislative grant as would suffice for the proper maintenance of the ducal dignity. Bismarck declined this also, declaring that he could not be expected to close such a career as his had been ' by running after a gratuity such as is given to a faithful letter-carrier at New Year's.' His resignation, of course, he would send in as soon as possible, but he owed it to himself and to his- tory to draw up a proper memorial. This he 1583 GERMANY, 1889-1890. The Modern Empire GERMANY, 1895. took two days to write. ... He has since re- peatedly demanded the publication of this memo- rial, but without success. . . . Ou March 20, the Emperor, in a most graciously worded letter (which was immediately published), accepted Bismarck's 'resignation.'. . . The immediate nomination of his successor [General von C'ap- rivi] forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in such haste that . . . ' Bis- marck himself compared his exit to the expul- sion of a German family from Paris in 1870.' " — Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing ' Das deutscJie Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' by Dr. lTan.s Blum). A. D. 1890. — Settlement of African claims with England. — Acquisition of Heligoland. See Africa : A. D. 1884-1891. A. D. 1894. — Reconciliation of Bismarck with the Emperor. — In January, 1894, the com- plete rupture of friendly relations between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's government, which had existed since the dismis- sal of the former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The Emperor made a peace-oflfer- ing, upon the occasion of the Prince's recovery from an illness, by sending his congratulations, with a gift of wine. Prince Bismarck responded amiably, "and was then invited to Berlin, to be entertained as a guest in the royal palace. The invitation was accepted, the visit promptly made on the 26th of January, and an enthusiastic re- ception was accorded to the venerable ex-chan- cellor at the capital, by court and populace alike. A. D. 1895. — The present organization of the modern German Empire. — "The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously brought about among the different classes of the people and among their representatives. But there . . . never has been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or where small and medium states have been pitted against the one large state. . . . How in- dispensable a parliamentary organ which actu- ally represents the unity of the people is to every state in a confederation is best shown by the energy with which the Prussian government again and again demanded a German parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about coming to an understanding with its own body of representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by the Federal Council (Bundesrath) : not until we have made this clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's representative to investigate each measure pro- posed and to see whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The Federal Coun- cil is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by the firm stability of the .seventeen votes which"it holds itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the representatives of the individual states to see that by furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the best means of further- ing their own local interests. Taken each by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own individual states ; taken as a whole the assembly represents a conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council already represents the whole empire, still more is this true of the general body of officials, constituted through appointment by the emperor,- although with a considerable amount of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the em- peror for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each department with the affairs of the whole empire The imperial court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor were they unsuccessful ; but once again it was primarily the struggle against the striv- ings for unity that chiefly impelled the princes to united action. The ' Carlsbad Decrees ' placed limits to separate teixitorial legislation to an extent that even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the idea of imperial legislation ; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree, published among other things a set of rules regulating exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of com- mercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal relationships was an actual question of life and death. So firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what had been done. Indeed, the idea of a uni- versal code of commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with the best will in the world. A number of conferences were called, and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up, thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subse- quent acceptance by the governments of the in- dividual states. But the practical result never- theless was that, in one important branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states. Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a codification of private law been introduced by means of legislation into the Ger- man states in common : for the first time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready enough to give over to the newly established empire an actual power of legisla- tion : only, indeed, for such matters as were adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law can in any way interfere. What the lawgiver of the German empire an- 1584 GERMANY, 1895. The Modern Empire. GERMANY, 1895. nounces as his will must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its inhabitants also had to be welded together into one organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its subjects — a very much graver evil than the disintegration of its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers had thrust itself in between the emperor and his sub- jects that at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any more heard the voice of their imperial master. ... In three ways the German emperor now found the way to his sub- jects. Already as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate subjects. By tlie entrance of a further 8 millions into the same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those branches of the administration which it created anew or at least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very beginning the most immediate contact with fts subjects: so in the army, so in the department of foreign af- fairs. The empire, finally, even where it left the administration to the individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a supreme national authoritative organization by setting up certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits. For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship ; and this common bond receives its true significance through nu- merous actual migrations from one state to an- other, the right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. ... It belongs in the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for itself all state-duties but should content itself with exercising only such functions as demand a cen- tralized organization. In consequence we see the individual states unfolding great activity in the field of internal administration, in the further- ance of education, art and science, in the care of the poor : matters with which the empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the most different ways. There are certain affairs admin- istered by the empire which it has brought as much under a central organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than the chief superintendence ; with re- gard to others still it is content to set up princi- ples which are to be generally followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be wrong, however, to imagine that the two last- mentioned prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its workings to make the laud-aiiny, in time of war, as much of a imit as is the consolidated navy. . . . Customs matters form a third cate- gory, with regard to which the empire possesses only the beginnings of an administrative appa- ratus: all the same we have seen in the last years how the right of general supervision was suffi- cient in this field to bring about a change in the direction of centralization, the importance of which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud opposition of its antago- nists. ... In the field of finance the empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the same time with vigor. In general the sepa- rate states have retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only that amount of con- solidation without which the unity of the empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed : ' Germany forms one customs and com- mercial unit bounded by common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to the individual states — the direct taxes in their entirety, the indirect to a great extent. The ad- ministration of the customs on the borders even remained in the hands of the local customs-offi- cials, only that when collected they were placed to the general account. But the unconditional right of the empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its own and to become more and more independent of the sched- uled contributions from the separate states. . . . Judicial matters are the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and with his accusa- tions the citizen whose rights have been infringed turns to the court established by his territorial lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole empire ; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as civil suits are everywhere the same. . . . The general German commercial code and the exchange reg- ulations, which almost all the states had pro- claimed law on the ground of the conferences under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the more important matters, and with regard to those of less importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Fur- thermore, a century-long development in our civilized states has brought it about that a su- pervision, itself in the form of legal decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed Itself to be an unavoidable neces- sity. Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely without limitations. 1585 GERMAKY, 1895. GERUSIA. but absolutely without the power to make ex- ceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn to the internal adminis- tration it is chiefly matters concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their very nature for regulation under one system. Al- though the management of local and to some extent also of provincial postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual states them- selves, the German post is nevertheless imperial, all the higher officials are appointed by the em- peror, the imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees that they are carried out witli reference to the whole empire. . . . What is true of the post is true also of the tele- graph, which has come again to be one with it. . . . The railroads stand under the direction or supervisory administration of the individual states, but unity with regard to time-tables, connections, fares, and forwarding has been in so far preserved that differences which might interrupt traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the confederated states are under obligations ' to allow the German rail- roads, iu the interests of general communication, to be administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a uni- fied system of intercommunication in Germany than the equalization of the coinage. . . . Still worse than with regard to coined money . . . did the want of unity show itself in the mat- ter of paper money. Not only did the various states have different principles on which they issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it, but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper money even when issuing new on another principle. . . . Pounded thus on a system of firm finances, on the uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills the necessary de- mands of unity, the German empire shows a measure of consolidation, the best outward ex- pression to which is given by its army. Among the two million men of Teutonic blood on land and on sea who are ready to protect the Father- land's boundaries there is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master." — I. Jas- trow, OescMchte des deutsehen EMieitatra'umes •und seiner Erfullung {trans, from the Oerman), pp. 285-803. GERMINAL, The month. See France : A. D. 1793 (October). GERONA, Siege of. See Spain : A. D. 1809 (February — .Tune). GERONTES.— Spartan senators, or members of the Gerusia. See Sparta : The Constitu- tion, &c. GERONTOCRACY. SeeHAYTi : A. D. 1804 -1880. GEROUSIA. See Gerusia. GERRY, Elbridge, and the framing of the Federal Constitution. See United States of Am.: A. D. 1787. GERRYMANDERING.— "In the composi- tion of the House of Representatives fof the Con- gress of the United States] the state legislatures play a very important part. For the purposes of the election a state is divided into districts corresponding to the number of representatives the state is entitled to send to Congress. These electoral districts are marked out by the legisla- ture, and the division is apt to be made by the preponderating party with an unfairness that is at once shameful and ridiculous. The aim, of course, is so to lay out the districts ' as to secure in the greatest possible number of them a ma- jority for the party which conducts the opera- tion. This is done sometimes by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters into a district which is anyhow certain tc be hostile, sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally divided some place in which the ma- jority of friendly voters is sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in Mississippi (the so- called Shoe-String District) 2.50 miles long by 30 broad, and another iu Pennsylvania resembling adumb-bell.' . . . This trick is called gerryman- dering, from Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts. ... In 1812, while Gerry was governor of that state, the Republican legislature redistributed the districts in such wise that the shapes of the towns forming a single district in Essex county gave to the district a somewhat dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and editor of the ' Centinel,' hung up over the desk in his office. The celebrated painter, Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office one day and observing the uncouth figure, added with his pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed, ' That will do for a salamander ! ' ' Better say a Gerrymander ! ' growled the editor ; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came into general currency." — J. Fiske, Civil Gov't in the U. 8., pp. 216-218. Also in : J. W. Dean, I%e Oerryinander (N- Bng. Hist, and Genealogical Beg., Oct., 1892). GERSCHHEIM, Battle of. See Germany: A. D. 1866. GERTRUYDENBERG: Prince Maurice's siege and capture of. See Netherlands : A. D. 1588-1593. Conferences at. See Prance : A. D. 1710. GERUSIA, OR GEROUSIA, The.— "There is the strongest reason to believe that among the Dorians, as in all the heroic states, there was, from time immemorial, a council of elders. Not only is it utterly incredible that the Spartan council (called the gerusia, or senate) was first instituted by Lycurgus, it is not even clear that he introduced any important alteration in its con- stitution or functions. It was composed of thirty members, corresponding to the number of the 'obes,' a division as ancient as that of the tribes. . . . The mode of election breathes a spirit of primitive simplicity : the candidates, who were required to have reached the age of sixty, pre- sented themselves in succession to the assembly, and were received with applause proportioned to the esteem in which they were held by their fel- low-citizens. These manifestations of popular feeling were noted by persons appointed for the purpose, who were shut up in an adjacent room, where they could hear the shouts, but could not see the competitors. He who in their judgment had been greeted with the loudest plaudits, won the prize — the highest dignity in the common- wealth next to the throne." — "C. Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, ch. 8 {v. 1). ]586 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, LOS ANGELES COLLEGE LIBRARY This book is due on the last date stamped below. R£C'D COL ua. Book Slip-35m-7,'63(D8634s4) 4280 IMllTlil«'iMNS;n'?~* ^«RAR, f,UL,7, D OOO' 457401"' u ni» D 9 L32 1901 V.2